Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 03:12:34PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>Steve McIntyre <firstname.lastname@example.org> (2016-07-04):
>> There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
>> other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
>> similarly to what we did in the etch days. That's *basically* just
>> like a normal jessie release, but with a few key updates:
>> * backports kernel
>That's a given.
>> * rebuilt d-i to match that kernel
>You know there are patches around for that.
>> * X drivers
>I don't see backports for them.
I installed a backport Intel xserver driver over the weekend at the
installfest, and it helped the user in question.
>> * ... (other things that might be needed for consistency)
>> all rolled up with a small installer image build (netinst, maybe
>That'd probably make it easy to decide how to resolve open questions
>with my "d-i vs. backported kernel" patches.
>> Is anybody else interested in helping? Thoughts/comments?
> 1. Is it going to pick pieces from backports only? (See X question
That's my current plan, unless people have good arguments otherwise.
> 2. Does it have to be called "jessie and a half"? (How much is the
> concept understood across users? Wouldn't it be a better idea to
> squeeze the "backports" concept into the name somehow?)
I'm not attached to any particular name. Something like "Jessie
Backport August 2016" would work for me too - suggest a better name?
> 3. What about security support once the system is installed? (Which
> can be answered along with 1., I suppose.)
Most of the core packages I'd expect to use in backports are seeing
regular updates AFAICS. That's probably enough?
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. email@example.com
You lock the door
And throw away the key
There's someone in my head but it's not me