On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Michael Meskes <mes...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 04:33:38PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Michael Meskes <mes...@debian.org> > wrote: > > > Anyhow, I doubt we can reasonably expect to maintain *all* packages > for a > > > longer > > > period. How about starting with a defined list of packages that we do > care > > > about in an LTS? I would start with just the basic system and the most > > > important server packages. > > > > Well, and how about starting to look at RFH for packages you care about > > right now and help with security (and SPU) updates right now, even > without > > LTS? > > How about not combining two different topics? I don't see a reason why a > discussion about a way to provide LTS needs to get shot with the > suggestion to > help with some random package instead. Of course you definitely have a > point in > that some/a lot of packages need work, but I think it is also reasonable to > discuss a strategy for a desirable (IMO) long-term goal. I don't think it's a different topic. If we are unable to support our stable and oldstable distributions in proper way due lack of time/manpower/interest/... (see Holger's email), then I can't imagine we can support a LTS release that would require even more time and manpower. So properly maintaining our stable/oldstable is a mandatory first step into being able to provide even longer support for random release we start to call the LTS. Whether we achieve that by throwing more manpower into the bunch, or splitting the archive into KEY packages (as defined in recent d-d-a email) and non-KEY packages, is different matter. O. -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> Have you tried Knot DNS – https://www.knot-dns.cz/ – a high-performance authoritative-only DNS server
