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

Re: Packages not supportable in squeeze-lts



[dropping squeeze-lts as the subscribers have been migrated]

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:14:32AM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> On 16. mai 2014, at 10:04, Yves-Alexis Perez <corsac@debian.org> wrote:
> 
> > On ven., 2014-05-16 at 07:12 +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> >> 
> >> These need discussion or specific commitment:
> >> wordpress (we already ship the same version in oldstable as in stable, if someone
> >>           commit we can continue to do so)
> > 
> > I did some DSAs for wordpress, upgrading to latest upstream releases,
> > and Raphaël (Hertzog) did some too. I think it's not that hard to
> > prepare them, so if he's ok too I guess we can keep it going that way
> > (at least until something really breaks).
> 
> Here are my thoughts, not really concluding anything, though …
> 
> WordPress as of 2.9 has few-click updates from wp-admin. 
> WordPress as of 3.7 has automated updates of security releases.
> 
> So, for updates at least, WordPress should not be a concern. Or?

Wordpress's automated upgrades aren't useful in a Debian packaged
environment; in fact, aren't they disabled? They won't work since they
won't be able to write to the root-owned files in the Debian package.

> Are fresh installs a consideration? I guess they are.

Yes. Even the automated wordpress upgrades technically work, I don't think
this would qualify as providing support within squeeze-lts. The reasonable
expectation will be that the code in the package is fit for use.

> I worry that sometime in the not too distant future, WordPress might, just like Joomla! did with 3.3, explicitly drop support for the PHP version provided by squeeze.
> 
> I can understand why, PHP 5.3.3 is not a very good PHP 5.3 version.
> 
> But at that point in time, people should either stop using squeeze for hosting PHP, or they should use a backported higher version.

Indeed. Just like wheezy, support for a given package can never be set
in stone.

Cheers,
Dominic.


Reply to: