On Wed, 2019-04-03 at 00:02 +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:23:46AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Debian LTS is a team within Debian. It's separate from the main
> > security team and the stable release managers, but it is no less
> > part
> > of Debian.
>
> Sure, I do understand that. My employer is one of the LTS sponsors.
>
> However what I am saying is, there are clearly quite a few users of
> Debian who were surprised and confused about jessie-updates going
> away. I think that means those users also did not know that they
> transitioned from relying on the security team and release managers
> to the LTS team.
>
> Clearly the LTS team cannot provide the same level of support,
I don't think this is clearly the case.
> so
> wouldn't you agree that it is important that users realise when they
> go from one state to another?
Yes, but that doesn't mean that if some users don't realise it is a
failure on our part.
> > The transition to extended support by the LTS team has always been
> > announced, in any case:
>
> Absolutely, but these users did not read those announcements, or
> else I think they wouldn't have been so confused by jessie-updates
> going away.
If users don't read announcements then the EOL will come as a surprise
too!
[...]
> Personally I'm not bothered either way about whether
> "<distro>-updates" remains something that can be in sources.list
> without causing update errors, but I am more concerned that a lot of
> users may have ended up transitioning to LTS without realising that,
> and wonder if there is any good way to help reduce that.
I don't think this is the big problem that you think it is.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Q. Which is the greater problem in the world today,
ignorance or apathy?
A. I don't know and I couldn't care less.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part