Re: Closing of buster-backports?
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 07:37:45AM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > > Now that buster is LTS and no longer officially supported, should the
> > > -backports pocket be closed? AFAIK, buster just receives the security
> > > uploads by the -security pocket and shouldn't have -backports open
> > > anymore. I hope I am not mistaken or missing anything?
> > >
> > > FTR, packages are still entering the -backports pocket and this
> > > probably needs to stop(!?)
> >
> > Why should it stop? If people are willing to do the work to backport a
> > package, why should it be blocked? The understanding is that the release as
> > a whole will not be supported, but voluntary updates will continue.
>
> we (backports ftpmasters) asked that question some time ago. Consensus was that the backports
> maintainers doesn't want to support oldstable backports over its lts lifetime.
>
> For that reason we will close oldstable-backports soon.
The cloud team publishes images for various cloud environments
(OpenStack, Amazon EC2, etc). The primary (and most popular, from the
data I have) images use the main kernel, but we publish alternative
images that boot the backports kernel by default.
Is there a plan to continue offering new kernels for buster LTS?
If we simply close the backports archive, we leave these users without a
path forward without upgrading to bullseye, which is something they're
evidently not ready for. We can cease publication of these images,
which will limit new adoption, but it'd be nice to continue providing at
least kernel backports.
noah
Reply to: