2008/1/2, Jon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Jan 2, 2008 11:21 AM, Pär Lidén <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, maybe there should be two different versions of the LTS release: > > One for the home-users where the applications are upgraded > > And another for corporate use, where they are not. > > > > Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of an LTS? > > I was under the impression that an LTS can be created and indeed supported > because it is kept at a known state. If arbitrary application upgrades are > allowed by end users, I would think that would lead to inconsistent systems > that would be harder to support. Perhaps even no different from the current > release version if I understand you correctly. >
Well, I was thinking along the lines of Evans, with core being kept stable, and just the applications being upgraded. And I was not thinking about arbitrary upgrades by the end user, but rather that programs such as Firefox and Openoffice could be updated to newer versions. But on a second thought, you are probably right that this could be solved better by having a more active backport-team. This wouldn't however still really solve my wish about updating hardware support post-release. But I think that to be able to backport hardware support in a good way, much things outside of Ubuntus control probably has to change. Maybe the kernel release process would have to change to like it was before (x.y.z, y even = stable, y odd = development). Probably it would also be easier to accomplish this if as much as possible of the hardware support was pushed to user-space. But this is maybe a different discussion than the original subject. /Pär
-- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
