[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian Update Cycle



On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 10:00:16PM +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:

Bad form to follow up to myself - but the second list was debian-kernel NOT
debian-boot

> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 10:27:42PM +0100, phil995511 - wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > Don't you think it would be smart to integrate all the updates contained in
> > the Backports directory with each new minor update of our favorite OS ? For
> > example for the versions 11.3, 11.4, etc ?
> > 
> 
> In my (limited) view: no, this would not be a useful idea if we wanted
> to maintain some degree of stability / backwards compatibility between
> point releases.
> 
> The packages in backports generally are less general they are also very
> much less tested. The net effect would be to render each point release
> (roughly every three months or so) potentially less stable than the last.
> 
> > This would make Debian easily compatible with all the new devices
> > available, without having to use the line of code too much... it would
> > therefore make Debian more accessible to all non-experienced Linux users.
> > 
> 
> It generally takes quite a time to make sure that Debian works on new
> devices - certainly longer than a point release. Updates once every two
> years on a major release seem sensible. [And some new devices never
> achieve Debian support - that's in the way of things, especially, say
> some with minority architectures].
> 
> > This would also facilitate the work of updating packages such as the Linux
> > kernel, which would hardly need to be in the LTS version to be used on
> > Debian and therefore maintained for many years by the Debian and Kernel.org
> > maintainers.
> > 
> 
> You need a kernel maintained for about five years by the time you reach the
> end of ELTS: "shiny new stuff" is always sligthly problematic.
> 
> > It would seem to me to strengthen the overall security of Debian, with less
> > effort/labor.
> > 
> 
> Sadly, the same amount of labour to package and increased amounts of labour
> to maintain distribution-wide I fear.
> > Best regards.
> > 
> > Philippe
> 
> All the very best, as ever,
> 
> Andy Cater
> 


Reply to: