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

Re: clamav 0.97.1 not coming to squeeze-updates ?



On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 02:52:35PM +0000, Camaleón wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:04:28 +0200, Jochen Schulz wrote:
> 
> > Camaleón:
> 
> (...)
> 
> >>> Lenny will reach its EOL in January 2012.
> >> 
> >> Hey, but that was not my understanding for lenny. I know that was how
> >> it used to be but now aren't we based on a 2-year of release fixed
> >> cycle? :-?
> >> 
> >> http://www.debian.org/News/2009/20090729
> >> 
> >> In that announcement it can be read:
> 
> (...)
>  
> > Interesting, I don't remember that at all.
> 
> Before installing a system, I carefully read what is the estimated/
> foreseen EOL for it. It's a must for me because I have servers to 
> maintain and I can't go reinstalling every year.
> 
> > I can only speculate about this, but I don't think this announcement is
> > relevant any more. The document is from July 2009 and predicted/promised
> > a squeeze release in early 2010. For that case only the authors promised
> > that you could skip the squeeze release. What actually happened is that
> > it took another whole year to release squeeze.
> 
> Dunno, but I hope the commitment is still valid.
>  
> >> I understand this is not the norm, but an exception for lenny in order
> >> to accomodate to the new development cycle.
> > 
> > … which didn't happen.
> 
> Again, dunno. I only know what I've read at Debian official 
> announcements. Seems to me that we (we → Debian) have to improve our 
> communication skills >:-)
> 

I've always understood old stable support to last about a year following the new stable
release. But I've never read the official statement.

This chart shows support lasting slightly over a year on average. And it
correlates with my memory.  (Which isn't necessarily saying much.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian#Release_history

-- 
Regards,
Freeman

"Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. NO (or Linux) is the
answer." --Somebody


Reply to: