On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:48:43PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 14954 March 1977, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > - for ftpmasters, can we keep wheezy/updates on security.debian.org for > > one year more? (it might be possible to archive wheezy and drop it from > > the main mirror, that would be a clear sign to everybody that something > > important changed, and we could reconfigure the buildd to use another > > repository) > > No. > > > - are there other problems related to this extended LTS that need to be > > discussed? > > If this would be "just" extending the current LTS ways for more time, > then it would be OKish to stay on donated, voluntarily managed, > infrastructure. After all it helps all users of wheezy with updates, > nominally over all of wheezy. > > But the proposal is effectively just for a benefit of a few paying > customers, with a very selected set of packages and architectures, all > the rest lost out. Thats not ok to ask volunteers to support, nor > is it ok to use projects infrastructure for. The companies that want it, > should run it. Maybe the proposal needs to be clarified, but my understanding was that some companies are willing to fund a longer LTS for a restricted set of packages and architectures¹, but that the product of that would continue to be available for anyone. I assume that Raphael knows that it wouldn't even make sense to ask if that could be done in Debian infrastructure if it wasn't available to all users. ¹ LTS is _already_ for a restricted set of packages and architectures, so this is just extra constraining to allow for longer support
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature