Fw: Extended Long Term Support for Wheezy
Wrong ML before.
Beginn der weitergeleiteten Nachricht:
Datum: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 16:52:02 +0100
Von: Jens Korte <email@example.com>
Betreff: Re: Extended Long Term Support for Wheezy
How would you organize and call it in the wiki name space, ELTS,
extended LTS, LTS? Would you use the normal LTS name space and make no
difference? LTS is on the one side the name for the support after
oldstable and on the other side the general name for LTS and ELTS.
Am Tue, 20 Feb 2018 16:07:03 +0100
schrieb Raphael Hertzog <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> [ Bcc to ftpmasters, wanna-build team, DSA team, LTS team, security
> team to catch their attention ]
> some of the LTS sponsors are looking to extend the support period of
> Debian 7 Wheezy (from a few months up to a full year). Some of the LTS
> sponsors (notably Plat'Home, Toshiba) are also members of the Civil
> Infrastructure Project which wants to build an "open source base layer
> (OSBL) for embedded systems" that would be supported for 15 years or
> more ("super long-term maintenance", SLTS in their jargon) and it
> looks like that Debian is their reference distribution to build this:
> I queried the current set of paid contributors and we have enough
> volunteers (6) to actually make this "extended LTS" happen for one
> supplementary year, at least from the "providing security updates"
> The problem is that this extension would not work like the regular
> LTS period. Due to the decreased interest for this extension, we would
> only support the set of packages requested by the sponsors and the
> sponsors will have to pay their (varying) share of the workload
> generated by the packages they use.
> Our question is whether this can be done on debian.org infrastructure.
> All sponsors and CIP members would largely prefer if we could continue
> to provide security updates through the usual debian.org channels.
> It's also the best way to let everybody benefit from the work done
> within this project. But it might be a bit misleading given that the
> rules would have again changed.
> So here are a few questions to the various teams:
> - for ftpmasters, can we keep wheezy/updates on security.debian.org
> for one year more? (it might be possible to archive wheezy and drop
> it from the main mirror, that would be a clear sign to everybody that
> something important changed, and we could reconfigure the buildd to
> use another repository)
> - for security team, can we continue to use the security tracker for
> wheezy for one year more? (or even longer in the context of CIP)
> - for buildd/DSA teams, can we keep wheezy buildds (only amd64/i386
> has been requested so far) for one year more?
> - are there other problems related to this extended LTS that need to
> be discussed?
> I'm happy to answer any question that you might have.