Re: What to do when DD considers policy to be optional? [kubernetes]
On 4/8/20 10:58 PM, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 10:36:17PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> I don't agree with this *at all*. It is not in the interest of our users
>> to be forced to update the software they use for their infrastructure
>> every few months.
>
> Isn't that the user's decision, when they decided to adopt a tool that
> requires this deployment model?
As a distribution, it's our role to give the choice to use the software,
without the painful points of the release management choices from upstream.
> Or, if they're not clear about what
> adopting this tool means, I agree that isn't in their interest for them
> to see that there's a debian package and be fooled into thinking it
> doesn't require this deployment model just because there's a zombie
> package in debian stable which will be essentially unsupported
If the package becomes a "zombie package" as you describe, then you're
right. Hopefully, that's not the plan!
> Putting it into
> debian provides zero benefit, and they could get the same "stability"
> guarantee by just keeping a copy of a two year old third party .deb and
> never updating it.
Though hopefully, the Debian package will be updated and fixed for any
bug found in Stable, plus security updates.
In the OpenStack world, we still find bugs after a year of using a one
year old release in production, which I insist fixing (though dealing
with the Stable release updates in Debian isn't easy, for reasons
outside of the scope of this thread). I expect the same things in the
Kubernets world too (both software stack are comparable in many ways).
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: