[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal to do regular jenkins updates via jessie-updates


"Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> writes:
> On Wed, 2015-04-08 at 23:33 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> On 2015-04-08 22:45, Miguel Landaeta wrote:
>> > Do you think is feasible or acceptable to maintain Jenkins in
>> > jessie-updates suite instead?
>> I am not entirely convinced that Jenkins applies to stable-updates
>> criteria[1].  However, I am leaving the final call on that to the SRMs.
> As someone who was involved in the initial setup of stable-updates, I'm
> afraid that I'm not convinced either.
> https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/LTS+Release+Line suggests
> that "long-term" means "supported for three months". I'm struggling to
> combine those two ideas, particularly in the context of a Debian stable
> release. (Similarly ""battle-tested" — meaning those commits that have
> already been a part of a main line release for more than a week".)
> I do wonder whether backports might be suitable, but I can't and won't
> speak on behalf of the backports team.

>From my understanding, packages in ${x}-backports must be included in
the ${x+1} release. For a package like Jenkins this currently doesn't
seem possible, so it cannot go to backports either.

So it looks to me like we currently miss a place to offer a package like
Jenkins to stable users, but it would be nice to have one as I believe
there will be more packages in this situation in the future (even though
we might not like this).

I do wonder a bit how much this is different from Iceweasel or Chromium
however: there we also ship new upstream releases to stay at a supported
version (though the life-time for Jenkins seems even shorter). Of course
this only works as long as no new dependencies are pulled in, or at
least stay at something managable.


Reply to: