On Tue, 2018-04-24 at 15:44 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > Therefore, would it make sense to add a Linux 4.9 backport to the > > regular jessie and jessie-security suites? > > Yes, I think so. It's also interesting to keep a security-supported > kernel once we are past the usual 5 years of LTS (aka Extended LTS). > Since the bakcported kernel is still supported in the next release, it's > possible to continue to maintain the backport while the original kernel > version clearly went out of support. > > > (Maintaining kernel backports is generally quite easy once the suite > > they are backported from is stable.) > > The only downside is that you can't have a linux-latest backport in the > main suite while it was possible in the jessie-backports suite. I think we would want to have a second version of linux-latest in order to ensure automatic upgrades over any future ABI changes. Something similar was done in 'etch and a half'. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Teamwork is essential - it allows you to blame someone else.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part