On Tue, 2016-01-12 at 00:14 -0500, Brian Gupta wrote: > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org> wrote: > > Le Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:31:14PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit : > >> > >> I started a discussion on the debian-backports mailing list. Let's see > >> how it > >> goes. > >> > >> <https://lists.debian.org/debian-backports/2015/11/msg00067.html> > > > > Hello everybody, > > > > To summarise the original question: > > > > some Debian Stable images prepared by us for some "cloud" systems contain a > > few > > hand-picked packages from stable-backports (or from testing or unstable, in > > which case the creation of a stable backport could be considered). To > > provide > > a path for security and bug upgrades, the most straightforward way is to add > > the stable-backports suite to APT's source list. This means that some users > > may install backported packages without realising it. The Debian Backports > > package states "Backports cannot be tested as extensively as Debian stable, > > and > > backports are provided on an as-is basis, with risk of incompatibilities > > with > > other components in Debian stable. Use with care!". Therefore, it is > > controversial whether using and enabling Backports is appropriate for an > > image > > that we call "Stable", and we wondered if something could be changed on > > APT's > > side to prevent unintentional installation of backports. [...] > Charles, great summary! I'm now wondering if cloud-init might be a candidate > for "stable-updates"?
My impression was that Charles was talking about packages that are /installed by/ cloud-init, not the install of cloud-init itself. Regards, Adam
