Am 28.01.2016 um 17:22 schrieb Moritz Muehlenhoff: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 05:24:13AM +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: >> On Tue, January 19, 2016 17:56, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote: >>> Moreover, squeeze lts has been advertised to end next February, the 6th >>> to be precise. At the same time, the security team would support wheezy >>> until April 26th 2016, which is the Jessie release date + 1 year. What >>> do you think if the Squeeze lts team extends Squeeze's life until the >>> end of April, to cut at the wheezy-lts starting period? >>> >>> Would the security team prefer the lts team focus more on fixing issues >>> currently open in wheezy, but already fixed in squeeze? >> >> I can't imagine objections that the security team would have against >> extending the support until 26 April, and indeed it makes sense to align >> it with the end of Wheezy support. >> >> As to whether you spend your time on remaining squeeze or ramp-up to >> wheezy or both, that is primarily the LTS team's own decision to make, of >> course in consultation with the sponsors, as they probably have ideas of >> what service they wish to invest in. > > Personally I think it rather makes sense to stick with end of February as > advertised. People will have planned for this and you should better use > the 1.5 months of transitions months to work on > > a) improving the infrastructure (like the archive/dak changes mentioned during > the BoF at DebConf) > b) working on some updates for wheezy. There are still a _lot_ of uncertainties > in the scope of packages to be supported in Wheezy LTS in the area of > virtualisation, libav and Java. I would also end the support for Squeeze in February as planned and focus on the transition to wheezy-lts by improving the infrastructure or fixing open security issues in wheezy. > Those will only be eliminated by actually > getting spending time on researching things in more depth. Examples: > - If you keep openjdk-6, figure out how to upgrade to new icedtea releases > (as currently done by doko, but he'll stop once Ubuntu 12.04 is EOLed) > Otherwise figure out the changes you need to make to only support openjdk-7 [...] In my opinion OpenJDK 7 should be an adequate replacement for OpenJDK 6 and I can't think of any serious regressions since all Java packages have proven to work with both JDKs. Why not strongly recommend to LTS users to switch to OpenJDK 7 but give them some time to do so and then phase out OpenJDK 6 support at the end of 2016? Regards, Markus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature