Re: request to remove "-updates" repository
Hello Adam,
On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 20:15, Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2020-04-05 at 19:51 +0100, Samuel Henrique wrote:
> > For the scope of "stable-updates" only then, would you say it makes
> > sense to just use "stable" instead, for the reasons I mentioned?
> > What do you say would be the negative impact of that (if any), since
> > the repository is already enabled by default and not using it is
> > equivalent to not updating the system until a point release gets out?
>
> Changing "stable" only happens at point releases, since it requires
> (amongst other things) combined GPG signatures from the FTP Team and
> Release Team. It's also a multiple hour process, involving both ftp and
> release teams together with the press and images teams, updated
> installers and so on.
I wasn't aware of this whole process happening for a point release,
this puts things in perspective.
> Removing stable-updates would mean that the only way that some changes
> - for instance, timezone updates, clamav updates, critical regressions
> introduced in a point release but not noticed until afterwards - would
> reach users would be for us to perform a point release or for the users
> to consume proposed-updates. I'm not convinced that either of those is
> a useful alternative.
Agreed, my proposal does not works with the current workflow.
I'm interested in this process, is there any documentation you
recommend me to understand the under-the-hood details of this?
Thanks for the clarifications.
--
Samuel Henrique <samueloph>
Reply to: