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

Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #60730 > unrolled thread

linux backport in jessie LTS

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

Contents

  linux backport in jessie LTS Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2018-04-22 18:00 +0200
    Re: linux backport in jessie LTS Thomas Arendsen Hein <thomas@intevation.de> - 2018-04-23 10:30 +0200
    Re: linux backport in jessie LTS Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2018-04-24 01:10 +0200
    Re: linux backport in jessie LTS Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> - 2018-04-24 15:50 +0200
      Re: linux backport in jessie LTS Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> - 2018-04-24 16:10 +0200

#60730 — linux backport in jessie LTS

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

The backports team decided in 2016 that backports suites will no longer
be updated once the corresponding stable suite enters LTS.  This
implies that jessie-backports will be closed at the end of May.

It is clear that a fair number of wheezy LTS users relied on backported
kernel versions and were caught out when this policy was applied to
wheezy (and not announced as clearly as it could have been).  I would
not be surprised if this recurs with jessie.

Therefore, would it make sense to add a Linux 4.9 backport to the
regular jessie and jessie-security suites?  Are there users currently
running jessie with Linux 4.9 and expecting to continue doing so
through the LTS period?

(Maintaining kernel backports is generally quite easy once the suite
they are backported from is stable.)

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
It is easier to write an incorrect program
than to understand a correct one.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#60737

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

* Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> [20180422 17:55]:
> Are there users currently
> running jessie with Linux 4.9 and expecting to continue doing so
> through the LTS period?

Yes!

Not as many as we had wheezy systems with a backports Kernel when we
realized that there are no further updates, but some.

And if the hardware of a system currently requiring Debian jessie
for compatibility reasons fails, replacement hardware will probably
need a newer kernel - and in this situation it will need it in a
hurry.

Intevation is an LTS sponsor, because we usually prefer Debian over
some of the other distributions offering LTS releases.

Regards,
Thomas

P.S.: I've sent the answer to all lists where this was originally
posted. Should this be limited to a single list?

-- 
Thomas Arendsen Hein <thomas@intevation.de> - OpenPGP key: 0x5BB3F5195816791A
https://blogs.intevation.de/thomas/         - https://intevation.de/~thomas/
Intevation GmbH, Neuer Graben 17, 49074 Osnabrueck - AG Osnabrueck, HR B 18998
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner

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

#60740

On 04/22/2018 05:54 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> The backports team decided in 2016 that backports suites will no longer
> be updated once the corresponding stable suite enters LTS.  This
> implies that jessie-backports will be closed at the end of May.
> 
> It is clear that a fair number of wheezy LTS users relied on backported
> kernel versions and were caught out when this policy was applied to
> wheezy (and not announced as clearly as it could have been).  I would
> not be surprised if this recurs with jessie.
> 
> Therefore, would it make sense to add a Linux 4.9 backport to the
> regular jessie and jessie-security suites?  Are there users currently
> running jessie with Linux 4.9 and expecting to continue doing so
> through the LTS period?

By all means, YES !

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

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

#60743

On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Therefore, would it make sense to add a Linux 4.9 backport to the
> regular jessie and jessie-security suites?

Yes, I think so. It's also interesting to keep a security-supported
kernel once we are past the usual 5 years of LTS (aka Extended LTS).
Since the bakcported kernel is still supported in the next release, it's
possible to continue to maintain the backport while the original kernel
version clearly went out of support.

> (Maintaining kernel backports is generally quite easy once the suite
> they are backported from is stable.)

The only downside is that you can't have a linux-latest backport in the
main suite while it was possible in the jessie-backports suite.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Support Debian LTS: https://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
Learn to master Debian: https://debian-handbook.info/get/

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

#60745

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

On Tue, 2018-04-24 at 15:44 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2018, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Therefore, would it make sense to add a Linux 4.9 backport to the
> > regular jessie and jessie-security suites?
> 
> Yes, I think so. It's also interesting to keep a security-supported
> kernel once we are past the usual 5 years of LTS (aka Extended LTS).
> Since the bakcported kernel is still supported in the next release, it's
> possible to continue to maintain the backport while the original kernel
> version clearly went out of support.
> 
> > (Maintaining kernel backports is generally quite easy once the suite
> > they are backported from is stable.)
> 
> The only downside is that you can't have a linux-latest backport in the
> main suite while it was possible in the jessie-backports suite.

I think we would want to have a second version of linux-latest in order
to ensure automatic upgrades over any future ABI changes.  Something
similar was done in 'etch and a half'.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Teamwork is essential - it allows you to blame someone else.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web