On 2020-12-09 16:25:54 +0000 (+0000), Stephan Lachnit wrote: [...] > The more I started thinking about it, the more I wondered about > why Debian Stable and Ubuntu LTS are *not* binary-compatible. It > just doesn't make sense to me. Both Debian Stable and Ubuntu LTS > provide a more "long term" approach than let's say Fedora. > And while Ubuntu LTS is based on Debian, it is not based on Debian > Stable, even though they have release cycle of two years. It would > seem kinda obvious that Debian and Ubuntu have a common freeze > period and work on LTS maintenance together. > > Does anyone know why this is not the case? I suspect some > historical reasons, but I couldn't find anything quickly. [...]
A (perhaps slightly glib) answer is that Ubuntu is just one Debian
derivative, albeit a rather popular one. Should the Debian release
process give Ubuntu special privilege in deciding how Debian's
contributors do that work? Should Debian expect to take all the
derivatives here into account during freeze?
https://wiki.debian.org/Derivatives/Census
This is really more of a question for Canonical and the Ubuntu
community, honestly. Ubuntu is derived from Debian, if Ubuntu wanted
its LTS series to be byte-compatible with certain Debian stable
releases then they would have designed their release process to make
that possible. Since they didn't, it was probably for a good reason,
but ultimately you should be asking them.
--
Jeremy Stanley
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
