Re: Any ideas on possibility of wheezy-lts?
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:03:11AM +1100, Jeremy Davis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have googled high and low and got no recent comment/thoughts/etc on
> whether or not there is even consideration of a Wheezy LTS.
>
> I understand that it would be dependant on the success (or not) of
> Squeeze-LTS but I could not find any (even preliminary) evaluation on
> that. TBH I couldn't even find any info on what the criteria for success
> might be...
>
> Any thoughts/ideas/input/feedback muchly appreciated.
[My personal opinion, not speaking for the security team]
One good metric is "are grave/critical issues fixed in a timely manner" and
squeeze LTS certainly delivers on that one. And the coverage of the rest
is also quite (especially if you consider how many packages are entirely
unsupported in other distros).
The number of sponsors is currently at the lower end of expectations,
but it will likely bump when wheezy LTS comes into place: squeeze LTS
was established quite close to the end of standard squeeze security
support, so many organisations had probably already migrated to wheezy
back then.
One thing we should fix is the integration of wheezy-lts into
security.debian.org, so that people don't have to switch. Maybe we
can sort this out during DebConf.
It also makes sense to review the set of packages relevant for Wheezy
LTS: For Squeeze LTS we already had an initial set of unsupported
packages (e.g. some web apps or Xen) and if the available manpower
doesn't increase, comb out more packages. E.g. I don't think anyone needs
updates for games. Also something that can best be discussed at DebConf.
Squeeze LTS misses a security-supported browser, so it's
usefulness as a desktop environment is fairly limited. Since iceweasel
is now a standalone package (and doesn't carry lots of xulrunner
reverse deps), that should likely be fixable for Wheezy (if there's
demand, though, since supportinh it will churn quite some time).
Cheers,
Moritz
Reply to: