Re: Packages not supportable in squeeze-lts
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:21:39AM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:18:28AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le vendredi 16 mai 2014 à 07:12 +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff a écrit :
> > > iceweasel (it was announced to provide a binary not using the full xul-lib approach, though)
> >
> > Raphaël is already providing us with iceweasel packages, I don’t see any
> > reason not to push them to squeeze-lts.
> >
> > > ffmpeg
> >
> > Same here.
> >
> > > qemu-kvm
> > > xen
> > > libvirt
> >
> > These ones really depend on someone interested enough to make them work.
> >
> > On the desktop side, I think you forgot openoffice.org. This one is
> > supportable, but only through backports of libreoffice.
> >
> > Sooner or later, we will also have to ask the question of the kernel and
> > hardware support. Upgrading to the wheezy kernel is workable, and some
> > specific packages such as nvidia-glx too, but for X.org this is another
> > story.
>
> This would be like a refresh of the etchnhalf kernel idea, I guess.
> Changing the default/only supported kernel crosses the line towards
> not being a stable supported release, IMO.
Yeah, I'd be uncomfortable shipping a significantly newer kernel version as
the default in squeeze-lts if the only reason it was upgraded hardware
support. While the kernel developers do a pretty amazing job of not
breaking things over time, there's still a non-trivial amount of risk. My
use-case for LTS, at the very least, is more about keeping existing machines
running and secure, rather than continuing to deploy squeeze machines onto
new generations of hardware.
On the other hand, I do like the idea of providing alternate kernels,
although I wonder if the regular backported kernel isn't enough for people?
- Matt
Reply to: