Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.devel > #72673 > unrolled thread

Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.devel

Contents

  Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2016-07-04 15:10 +0200
    Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> - 2016-07-04 15:20 +0200
      Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> - 2016-07-04 15:30 +0200
        Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> - 2016-07-04 18:10 +0200
          Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> - 2016-07-10 19:40 +0200
            Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> - 2016-07-10 20:50 +0200
      Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 22:10 +0200
        Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2016-07-05 00:40 +0200
          Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Russell Stuart <russell-debian@stuart.id.au> - 2016-07-05 02:10 +0200
          Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release "Rebecca N. Palmer" <rebecca_palmer@zoho.com> - 2016-07-05 09:50 +0200
            Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Russell Stuart <russell-debian@stuart.id.au> - 2016-07-05 10:10 +0200
            Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2016-07-05 18:00 +0200
          Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 05:20 +0200
            Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2016-07-09 13:10 +0200
              Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2016-09-07 22:20 +0200
                Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-09-08 01:30 +0200
        Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2016-07-05 10:40 +0200
        Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2016-07-05 20:20 +0200
          Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> - 2016-07-05 21:10 +0200
          Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2016-07-06 00:50 +0200
            Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2016-07-06 09:40 +0200
              Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2016-07-06 10:00 +0200
                Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2016-07-06 10:10 +0200
                Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2016-07-06 10:10 +0200
      Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2016-07-05 10:30 +0200
    Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Jose R R <Jose.r.r@metztli-it.com> - 2016-07-04 16:10 +0200
    Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2016-07-04 19:10 +0200
      Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Mark Brown <broonie@debian.org> - 2016-07-05 10:40 +0200
        Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2016-07-05 11:00 +0200
          Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Mark Brown <broonie@debian.org> - 2016-07-05 11:30 +0200
      Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2016-07-06 00:40 +0200
    Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de> - 2016-07-05 11:10 +0200
      Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Jose R R <Jose.r.r@metztli-it.com> - 2016-07-05 12:50 +0200
        Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Samuel Henrique <samueloph@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 14:50 +0200
          Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 04:30 +0200
    Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel@debian.org> - 2016-07-05 14:40 +0200
      Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2016-07-06 00:50 +0200
    Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Breno Leitao <brenohl@br.ibm.com> - 2016-07-05 21:40 +0200
      Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2016-07-06 00:50 +0200
        Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Breno Leitao <brenohl@br.ibm.com> - 2016-07-06 17:50 +0200
    Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2016-07-06 20:20 +0200
      Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2016-07-07 10:10 +0200
      Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Timo Jyrinki <timo.jyrinki@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 10:20 +0200
    Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Alexander Wirt <formorer@formorer.de> - 2016-07-07 12:30 +0200
      Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi> - 2016-07-07 13:30 +0200
    Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi> - 2016-07-07 12:30 +0200
    Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 15:50 +0200
      Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 04:00 +0200
      Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2016-09-07 22:30 +0200
    Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 05:50 +0200
      Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 16:20 +0200
      Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2016-09-08 16:30 +0200
        Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 15:10 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#72732

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 11:43:14PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >I assume "forking" the kernel for jessie+½ as done for etch-and-half is
> >the plan already? (forking as in using a new source package…)
> God, no - really *not* that way at all. I'm thinking of using the
> kernel in backports at the time we do a build/test/release
> cycle. People using this and updating will end up following bpo for a
> while until the Stretch release.
 
ah, ok. 

then I'd like to suggest *not* to call it jessie+half, as we have used
that term already (for etch+half) and there we had a frozen/stable kernel,
not a moving target like bpo.

maybe "jessie+bpo-installer" would be a better fit?

and maybe, we could also do such releases more regularily (if this works
out and turns out not to be that much extra work…)


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72733

On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 07:33:38AM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 11:43:14PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> >I assume "forking" the kernel for jessie+½ as done for etch-and-half is
>> >the plan already? (forking as in using a new source package…)
>> God, no - really *not* that way at all. I'm thinking of using the
>> kernel in backports at the time we do a build/test/release
>> cycle. People using this and updating will end up following bpo for a
>> while until the Stretch release.
> 
>ah, ok. 
>
>then I'd like to suggest *not* to call it jessie+half, as we have used
>that term already (for etch+half) and there we had a frozen/stable kernel,
>not a moving target like bpo.

ACK - I'm not wedded to the name in the slightest. It's more a
proposal of what we're going to do.

>maybe "jessie+bpo-installer" would be a better fit?

Maybe that fits, but it's horrid name.

>and maybe, we could also do such releases more regularily (if this works
>out and turns out not to be that much extra work…)

*possibly*, yes.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"Every time you use Tcl, God kills a kitten." -- Malcolm Ray

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72734

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 08:55:39AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> ACK - I'm not wedded to the name in the slightest. It's more a
> proposal of what we're going to do.
 
ok, cool.

> >maybe "jessie+bpo-installer" would be a better fit?
> Maybe that fits, but it's horrid name.

I don't think it's that horrible, OTOH it's descriptivem, which IMO is a
big plus.

"Jessie+half" OTOH implies things it doesnt really hold up too, plus
it's confusing, cause the rules for this shall be different than the
rules we had for "Etch+half", so yes, I think, a different name would be
apt.

Maybe even "8.5+bpo installer"?

Other suggestions?

> >and maybe, we could also do such releases more regularily (if this works
> >out and turns out not to be that much extra work…)
> *possibly*, yes.

I guess our users would applaud that…


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72735

On Wed, 2016-07-06 at 08:55 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 07:33:38AM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
[...]
> > I'd like to suggest *not* to call it jessie+half, as we have used
> >that term already (for etch+half) and there we had a frozen/stable kernel,
> >not a moving target like bpo.
> 
> ACK - I'm not wedded to the name in the slightest.

And it could be misleading, I'm already running Jessie and a half

$ cat /etc/debian_version 
8.5

:-)

-- 
Tixy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72695

On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 03:12:34PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> (2016-07-04):
>> There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
>> other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
>> similarly to what we did in the etch days. That's *basically* just
>> like a normal jessie release, but with a few key updates:
>> 
>>  * backports kernel
>
>That's a given.
>
>>  * rebuilt d-i to match that kernel
>
>You know there are patches around for that.

ACK. :-)

>>  * X drivers
>
>I don't see backports for them.

I installed a backport Intel xserver driver over the weekend at the
installfest, and it helped the user in question.

>>  * ... (other things that might be needed for consistency)
>> 
>> all rolled up with a small installer image build (netinst, maybe
>> DVD#1).
>
>That'd probably make it easy to decide how to resolve open questions
>with my "d-i vs. backported kernel" patches.

Cool.

>> Is anybody else interested in helping? Thoughts/comments?
>
>Questions:
> 1. Is it going to pick pieces from backports only? (See X question
>    above.)

That's my current plan, unless people have good arguments otherwise.

> 2. Does it have to be called "jessie and a half"? (How much is the
>    concept understood across users? Wouldn't it be a better idea to
>    squeeze the "backports" concept into the name somehow?)

I'm not attached to any particular name. Something like "Jessie
Backport August 2016" would work for me too - suggest a better name?

> 3. What about security support once the system is installed? (Which
>    can be answered along with 1., I suppose.)

Most of the core packages I'd expect to use in backports are seeing
regular updates AFAICS. That's probably enough?

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
You lock the door
And throw away the key
There's someone in my head but it's not me 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72677

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
> other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
> similarly to what we did in the etch days. That's *basically* just
> like a normal jessie release, but with a few key updates:
>
>  * backports kernel
I built Reiser4-patched (SFRN 4.0.1) Linux kernel 4.6.2-2 from Debian
source (i.e, 'backport') for Jessie on AMD64.

>  * rebuilt d-i to match that kernel
Did - but upon d-i test installation of Debian Desktop Environment, I
found out it(seems *all* GUIs selected in d-i) has a 'nasty'
dependency on xserver-xorg-input-vmmouse for VMware. Those of us not
on proprietary stuff can purge xserver-xorg-input-vmmouse; however,
action will also remove a couple of task*-related packages. Adding the
Stretch repositories and subsequently installing
xserver-xorg-input-vmmouse, it will bring about plenty of X upgrades.

So *yes*:
>  * X drivers
>  * ... (other things that might be needed for consistency)
>
> all rolled up with a small installer image build (netinst, maybe DVD#1).
>
> A lot of arm64 machine users would benefit from this, and maybe owners
> of very recent amd64 machines too, with better support for things on
> the Skylake platform. Those are the only two architectures I'm
> thinking of supporting at this point.
>
> Is anybody else interested in helping? Thoughts/comments?
>
> --


Best Professional Regards.

-- 
Jose R R
http://metztli.it
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try at no charge http://b2evolution.net for http://OpenShift.com PaaS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from our GitHub http://Nepohualtzintzin.com repository. Cloud the easy way!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72682

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, 2016-07-04 at 14:01 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Hey folks,
> 
> There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
> other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
> similarly to what we did in the etch days.

As I recall, that added extra packages to the etch suite, whereas it
seems like this would take updated packages the jessie-backports suite.

> That's *basically* just like a normal jessie release, but with a few
> key updates:
> 
>  * backports kernel
>  * rebuilt d-i to match that kernel
>  * X drivers
>  * ... (other things that might be needed for consistency)

For the kernel: firmware-nonfree, kernel-wedge, linux-base, linux-
latest, linux-signed, sbsigntool.  All of those are already in jessie-
backports, except the last two which will be needed starting with 4.7.

For user-space graphics: libdrm and mesa, presumably.

> all rolled up with a small installer image build (netinst, maybe DVD#1).
> 
> A lot of arm64 machine users would benefit from this, and maybe owners
> of very recent amd64 machines too, with better support for things on
> the Skylake platform. Those are the only two architectures I'm
> thinking of supporting at this point.
> 
> Is anybody else interested in helping? Thoughts/comments?

When do you anticipate this would be releasable?  Would it really be
long enough before stretch, to be worthwhile?

Ben.

-- 

Ben Hutchings
Lowery's Law:
             If it jams, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing
anyway.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72697

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 07:05:42PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-07-04 at 14:01 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:

> > A lot of arm64 machine users would benefit from this, and maybe owners
> > of very recent amd64 machines too, with better support for things on
> > the Skylake platform. Those are the only two architectures I'm
> > thinking of supporting at this point.

> > Is anybody else interested in helping? Thoughts/comments?

> When do you anticipate this would be releasable?  Would it really be
> long enough before stretch, to be worthwhile?

We're getting to the point where there's a fairly pressing need for
arm64 - the more useful hardware is starting to get a wider distribution
and we don't really have anything for people who want to run Debian
that gets them a supported system with an upgrade path.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72698

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, 2016-07-05 at 10:07 +0200, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 07:05:42PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-07-04 at 14:01 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> 
> > > A lot of arm64 machine users would benefit from this, and maybe owners
> > > of very recent amd64 machines too, with better support for things on
> > > the Skylake platform. Those are the only two architectures I'm
> > > thinking of supporting at this point.
> 
> > > Is anybody else interested in helping? Thoughts/comments?
> 
> > When do you anticipate this would be releasable?  Would it really be
> > long enough before stretch, to be worthwhile?
> 
> We're getting to the point where there's a fairly pressing need for
> arm64 - the more useful hardware is starting to get a wider distribution
> and we don't really have anything for people who want to run Debian
> that gets them a supported system with an upgrade path.

I'm not questioning whether it would be good to have this now.  But we
don't have it now and won't have it for some time.

Ben.

-- 

Ben Hutchings
Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.
                                                               - John
Lennon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72701

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 10:52:37AM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-07-05 at 10:07 +0200, Mark Brown wrote:

> > We're getting to the point where there's a fairly pressing need for
> > arm64 - the more useful hardware is starting to get a wider distribution
> > and we don't really have anything for people who want to run Debian
> > that gets them a supported system with an upgrade path.

> I'm not questioning whether it would be good to have this now.  But we
> don't have it now and won't have it for some time.

So long as it's substantially before the next release it shuld still be
useful.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72722

On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 07:05:42PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>On Mon, 2016-07-04 at 14:01 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Hey folks,
>> 
>> There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
>> other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
>> similarly to what we did in the etch days.
>
>As I recall, that added extra packages to the etch suite, whereas it
>seems like this would take updated packages the jessie-backports suite.

Yup, that's what I'm thinking.

>> That's *basically* just like a normal jessie release, but with a few
>> key updates:
>> 
>>  * backports kernel
>>  * rebuilt d-i to match that kernel
>>  * X drivers
>>  * ... (other things that might be needed for consistency)
>
>For the kernel: firmware-nonfree, kernel-wedge, linux-base, linux-
>latest, linux-signed, sbsigntool.  All of those are already in jessie-
>backports, except the last two which will be needed starting with 4.7.

Right.

>For user-space graphics: libdrm and mesa, presumably.
>
>> all rolled up with a small installer image build (netinst, maybe DVD#1).
>> 
>> A lot of arm64 machine users would benefit from this, and maybe owners
>> of very recent amd64 machines too, with better support for things on
>> the Skylake platform. Those are the only two architectures I'm
>> thinking of supporting at this point.
>> 
>> Is anybody else interested in helping? Thoughts/comments?
>
>When do you anticipate this would be releasable?  Would it really be
>long enough before stretch, to be worthwhile?

I'm thinking late July / early August, which would still give us a
number of months lead on Stretch.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
  Armed with "Valor": "Centurion" represents quality of Discipline,
  Honor, Integrity and Loyalty. Now you don't have to be a Caesar to
  concord the digital world while feeling safe and proud.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72700

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 07/04/2016 03:01 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
> other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
> similarly to what we did in the etch days. That's *basically* just
> like a normal jessie release, but with a few key updates:
> 
>  * backports kernel
>  * rebuilt d-i to match that kernel
>  * X drivers
>  * ... (other things that might be needed for consistency)
> 
> all rolled up with a small installer image build (netinst, maybe DVD#1).

Why would you call it "Jessie + 1/2"? Wouldn't it be a better idea
to regularly have a "backports installer" netinst image? So when
8.6 (or 8.7 if it takes longer) comes around, there'll be an image,
part of the point release, that will contain the backports kernel
that's current at that time, plus the installer will enable backports
automatically, plus it will install a preferences.d file that will
enable pulling kernel + X11 drivers from backports. (But not other
things.)

This could then be a regular part of the released installer images,
and any new major release (e.g. Stretch 9.0) would enable the
preferences.d file + backports automatically, but would still use
the regular kernel at that point (because there'd be no backports
then).

That way, you'd have a little more work in the installer in creating
an image that uses a backports kernel, but there'd be no need in
having to support a new release in addition to Jessie, because the
installed system would be equivalent to Jessie + upgrade kernel to
backports + remove old kernel package. Which is already something
that people do _now_.

Regards,
Christian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72703

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Christian Seiler <christian@iwakd.de> wrote:
>
> On 07/04/2016 03:01 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some
> > other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release,
> > similarly to what we did in the etch days. That's *basically* just
> > like a normal jessie release, but with a few key updates:
> >
> >  * backports kernel
> >  * rebuilt d-i to match that kernel
> >  * X drivers
> >  * ... (other things that might be needed for consistency)
> >
> > all rolled up with a small installer image build (netinst, maybe DVD#1).
>
> Why would you call it "Jessie + 1/2"? Wouldn't it be a better idea
Well IBM set a precedent for that: OS/2.
Accordingly, Jessie BP could be called Jessie/2 ;-)

> to regularly have a "backports installer" netinst image? So when
> 8.6 (or 8.7 if it takes longer) comes around, there'll be an image,
> part of the point release, that will contain the backports kernel
> that's current at that time, plus the installer will enable backports
> automatically, plus it will install a preferences.d file that will
> enable pulling kernel + X11 drivers from backports. (But not other
> things.)
>
> This could then be a regular part of the released installer images,
> and any new major release (e.g. Stretch 9.0) would enable the
> preferences.d file + backports automatically, but would still use
> the regular kernel at that point (because there'd be no backports
> then).
>
> That way, you'd have a little more work in the installer in creating
> an image that uses a backports kernel, but there'd be no need in
> having to support a new release in addition to Jessie, because the
> installed system would be equivalent to Jessie + upgrade kernel to
> backports + remove old kernel package. Which is already something
> that people do _now_.
>
> Regards,
> Christian
>


Good luck!

-- 
Jose R R
http://metztli.it
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try at no charge http://b2evolution.net for http://OpenShift.com PaaS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from our GitHub http://Nepohualtzintzin.com repository. Cloud the easy way!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72705

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

2016-07-05 7:43 GMT-03:00 Jose R R <Jose.r.r@metztli-it.com>:

> > Why would you call it "Jessie + 1/2"? Wouldn't it be a better idea
> Well IBM set a precedent for that: OS/2.
> Accordingly, Jessie BP could be called Jessie/2 ;-)


​Well, that would be a half Jessie, not Jessie and a half, right?​ We could
use 3Jessie/2 or Jessie3/2, or maybe not.

Mark Brown

> We're getting to the point where there's a fairly pressing need for
> arm64 - the more useful hardware is starting to get a wider distribution
> and we don't really have anything for people who want to run Debian
> that gets them a supported system with an upgrade path.
>

​We have Debian Stretch, which is what i recommend to anybody who wants do
install Debian as a desktop.

I understand the difference of running Debian Testing and Debian Stable
with some backported packages, but is it really worth it?
Shouldn't we discuss more the usability of Testing as a solid release, or
maybe start doing a stable release and another release kinda like Testing
but with more stability guarantees?

I'm not really sure, but i think opensuse has a model like that.

I use debian for a considerable amount of time now, but just started
interacting with the community recently, having installed debian to a lot
of new users on installfests over the years, one of the most common
problems i found out for novice Debian users is that they don't really know
how Debian releases works and thinks using stable in their laptop bought
last year is a good idea, then i always end up having a conversation where
they're needing help with problems related to using stable, i have to
explain things like: why their performance is crap, why they can't see
youtube html5 videos on iceweasel version lastversion-4, why they can't
install softwares like steam (wheezy was a hard one on this)* and how the
testing stability is the same, or better, than of the other distros they
used to use.
They always end up using Debian Testing, knowing that the main risk comes
when the unfreeze happens and that while the freeze is rolling they will
have a more stable debian (compared to when unfreezed).

*these are just some of the various conversations i've had.

​Unfortunately i' not attending DebConf, but it is a great opportunity to
discuss​ things like this there, maybe even form a team and work on
policies changes for this "new testing" release, if i'm not dreaming too
big.


Samuel Henrique O. P. [samueloph]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72791

On 5 July 2016 at 08:40, Samuel Henrique <samueloph@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2016-07-05 7:43 GMT-03:00 Jose R R <Jose.r.r@metztli-it.com>:
>>
>> We're getting to the point where there's a fairly pressing need for
>> arm64 - the more useful hardware is starting to get a wider distribution
>> and we don't really have anything for people who want to run Debian
>> that gets them a supported system with an upgrade path.
>
>
> We have Debian Stretch, which is what i recommend to anybody who wants do
> install Debian as a desktop.
>
> I understand the difference of running Debian Testing and Debian Stable with
> some backported packages, but is it really worth it?
> Shouldn't we discuss more the usability of Testing as a solid release, or
> maybe start doing a stable release and another release kinda like Testing
> but with more stability guarantees?
>
> I'm not really sure, but i think opensuse has a model like that.
>
...
> They always end up using Debian Testing, knowing that the main risk comes
> when the unfreeze happens and that while the freeze is rolling they will
> have a more stable debian (compared to when unfreezed).

I personally like to test stable+1 on my laptop by changing stable to
stable+1_codename about a month after the freeze happens; it then
transitions to stable automatically, and no trouble with the unfreeze.
As for building off of a [semi]rolling release model, from testing,
I'm pessimistic because of historical precedents for success.  For
example: http://cut.debian.net/
https://www.reddit.com/r/debian/comments/3yeg6z/what_happened_with_debian_cut/

Tanglu seems to have stalled, and SolydXK is now stable+bpos, but
maybe they will go back to using stable+1 once it freezes? And a
recent discussion on running testing ->
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=128598&start=0

Of course, I'd also love to see it work! :-)  I'm guessing it requires
a substantial investment of time and a very dedicated—and large
enough—team.

Cheers,
Nicholas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72704

Hi Steve, 

On Mon Jul 04, 2016 at 14:01:03 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> A lot of arm64 machine users would benefit from this, and maybe owners
> of very recent amd64 machines too, with better support for things on
> the Skylake platform. Those are the only two architectures I'm
> thinking of supporting at this point.
> 
> Is anybody else interested in helping? Thoughts/comments?

from a cloud image users perspective this sounds like a great idea.
There are several things eg. in the kernel with 10GE network drivers,
where a newer kernel would  definitivly help a lot. Also maybe newer
cloud-init and friends would help.

Please go for it.

+1 from my side.

Cheers,
Martin
-- 
 Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel@debian.org>    Debian System Administrator
 Debian & GNU/Linux Developer                       Debian Listmaster
 http://about.me/zobel                               Debian Webmaster
 GPG Fingerprint:  6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D  BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B 627B 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72726

On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 02:37:06PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
>Hi Steve, 
>
>On Mon Jul 04, 2016 at 14:01:03 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> A lot of arm64 machine users would benefit from this, and maybe owners
>> of very recent amd64 machines too, with better support for things on
>> the Skylake platform. Those are the only two architectures I'm
>> thinking of supporting at this point.
>> 
>> Is anybody else interested in helping? Thoughts/comments?
>
>from a cloud image users perspective this sounds like a great idea.
>There are several things eg. in the kernel with 10GE network drivers,
>where a newer kernel would  definitivly help a lot. Also maybe newer
>cloud-init and friends would help.
>
>Please go for it.
>
>+1 from my side.

ACk, thanks for the feedback.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"This dress doesn't reverse." -- Alden Spiess

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72718

Steve,

On 07/04/2016 10:01 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> A lot of arm64 machine users would benefit from this, and maybe owners
> of very recent amd64 machines too.

ppc64el port would take benefit from it also, since, there were many new
kernel features that made linux after 3.16.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72725

On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 04:15:36PM -0300, Breno Leitao wrote:
>Steve,
>
>On 07/04/2016 10:01 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>A lot of arm64 machine users would benefit from this, and maybe owners
>>of very recent amd64 machines too.
>
>ppc64el port would take benefit from it also, since, there were many new
>kernel features that made linux after 3.16.

ACK. Just kernel, or any other bits?

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
  Getting a SCSI chain working is perfectly simple if you remember that there
  must be exactly three terminations: one on one end of the cable, one on the
  far end, and the goat, terminated over the SCSI chain with a silver-handled
  knife whilst burning *black* candles. --- Anthony DeBoer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72744

On 07/05/2016 07:43 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 04:15:36PM -0300, Breno Leitao wrote:
>> Steve,
>>
>> On 07/04/2016 10:01 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>> A lot of arm64 machine users would benefit from this, and maybe owners
>>> of very recent amd64 machines too.
>>
>> ppc64el port would take benefit from it also, since, there were many new
>> kernel features that made linux after 3.16.
>
> ACK. Just kernel, or any other bits?

I think just the kernel is enough for this 'jessie and half' release. 
Userspace packages upgrade can wait for Stretch.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.devel

csiph-web