On 2013-05-04 20:09, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sun, May 05, 2013 at 04:31:12AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
Another problme is that it would not benefit from possible security
updates.
There are security updates on wheezy-backports, but I assume that you
mean
that: if 1) we do not add wheezy-backports to /etc/apt/sources.list
and 2) if
there is a security update, then it will be less straightforward for
our users
to benefit from it.
One solution would be to add wheezy-backports to
/etc/apt/sources.list. By
default, it will never cause the installation of backports on the
system unless
the administrator specifically requests it. Because wheezy-backports
are
configured with "ButAutomaticUpgrades: yes", security updates for the
backported cloud-init will come the same way as security updates for
packages
in Wheezy. Apart from the goal of being as similar as possible as
systems
installed with Debian-Installer with default choices, I do not see
disadvantages for doing so.
If the cloud-init backport works well, another solution would be to
add
cloud-init to Wheezy in the next point release. (In know that it is
not on
this list that it has to be formally proposed, but I think that this
request
would only have a chance to pass if it is largely consensual here, so
let's
discuss it here first).
Add cloud-init to the point release. IMO, its important enough that it
should be added before the point release, but either way, just get
cloud-init into wheezy. Failure to do this means the cloud images will
either be special (with backports) or mostly unusable for a huge
portion of users.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
