On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 15:07 +0100, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote:
> A Dimecres, 15 de gener de 2014, Roland Stigge va escriure:
> > On 01/15/2014 01:16 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > >> In addition, kernels supported by official Xenomai patches also
> > >> typically differ from the ones that Debian ships.
> > >>
> > >> Since Debian synchronizes quite well now with kernel.org stable
> > >> branches, there is at least a good chance to synchronize in this
> > >> second regard.
> > >
> > > Since Leopold is talking about generating patched linux images, does it
> > > really matter if they do not use the same versions as the ones used by
> > > Debian?
> >
> > Yes, if it's included in Debian stable, we would need to trust someone
> > who steps up to support the respective package (i.e. its over time aging
> > version) for security updates for years.
> >
> > When it's "only" in backports, there is no such hard restriction.
> >
>
> I like the option of backports.
[...]
All packages in backports must first be present in testing. Which means
they must first be intended to be included in (the next) stable.
So, there really has to be security support in stable, based on a single
stable upstream version.
(Based on current release schedules, the current upstream version of
Linux at the time of jessie's freeze (5th November) will be 3.17 so I
would expect us to use either 3.16 or 3.17. Ideally this would also be
the base version for Greg K-H's next longterm branch. I have no
intention of maintaining two longterm branches myself.)
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.
- John Lennon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part