On Wed, 2019-04-03 at 00:02 +0000, Andy Smith wrote: > Hi Ben, > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:23:46AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > Debian LTS is a team within Debian. It's separate from the main > > security team and the stable release managers, but it is no less > > part > > of Debian. > > Sure, I do understand that. My employer is one of the LTS sponsors. > > However what I am saying is, there are clearly quite a few users of > Debian who were surprised and confused about jessie-updates going > away. I think that means those users also did not know that they > transitioned from relying on the security team and release managers > to the LTS team. > > Clearly the LTS team cannot provide the same level of support,
I don't think this is clearly the case. > so > wouldn't you agree that it is important that users realise when they > go from one state to another? Yes, but that doesn't mean that if some users don't realise it is a failure on our part. > > The transition to extended support by the LTS team has always been > > announced, in any case: > > Absolutely, but these users did not read those announcements, or > else I think they wouldn't have been so confused by jessie-updates > going away. If users don't read announcements then the EOL will come as a surprise too! [...] > Personally I'm not bothered either way about whether > "<distro>-updates" remains something that can be in sources.list > without causing update errors, but I am more concerned that a lot of > users may have ended up transitioning to LTS without realising that, > and wonder if there is any good way to help reduce that. I don't think this is the big problem that you think it is. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Q. Which is the greater problem in the world today, ignorance or apathy? A. I don't know and I couldn't care less.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part