On 9/2/26 5:02 PM, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote:
El 02/09/26 a las 15:34, Thomas Goirand escribió:
On 9/2/26 1:13 PM, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
Hello Thomas,
On 02/09/2026 11:25, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 9/2/26 7:13 AM, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
Thanks for maintaining OpenStack for older releases :)
Currently LTS doesn't have proposed updates or point releases.
This may change in the future, possibly through a debusine-based
staging repository.
I do not see any relationship with debusine. Why is this related?
debusine can provide APT-accessible repositories, and an idea is to set-
up a staging area in debusine to mimic SPU/OSPU. I've heard the idea for
a while but there's ongoing work to do something similar for ELTS.
I do not think it is a good idea to do this outside of the Debian infra, and
the normal FTP mirror things. I'd prefer if the LTS was moving the other
direction, rather than being something outside of Debian.
We don't want to move "outside" of Debian at all. The idea mentioned
above is to have a staging repo (provided by debusine.debian.net (yes,
the .net is what we have as of today)) where interested users may
download packages from, equivalent to
deb http://deb.debian.org/debian ${RELEASE_IN_LTS}-updates main.
Just like I maintain osbpo.debian.net for OpenStack, debusine is also
not Debian official. Yes, it really is "outside" of Debian.
Maintaining a repository is supposed to be the job of the FTP archive
team, and it shouldn't go on a debian.net repo. But that's not what
bothers me the most. It's also because RELEASE-updates isn't in the FTP
mirrors, so one would have to manually add that repo and mirror it,
instead of just coming with all other suites. It's very not convenient
for our users too.
Periodically, packages will must be uploaded to security-master, so the
final DLA for those packages would be associated to packages downloaded
from debian.org.
Again, what I don't like is that we would do DLA for the LTS, when we
don't do DSA for Stable. It doesn't make sense, and the process should
be unified.
But, regarding your comment, TTBOMK, taking care of {old,}oldstable in
the same way the Release team does for PUs, after the first three years,
is something that we haven't considered nor discussed with any other
team.
The LTS started as an experiment. It has outlived it, and it probably is
time to reconsider how we're doing it. I'm convinced the FTP archive
team would agree if we were to upload there, instead of just -security,
and unify the process.
Note if that was not clear: as the security team is *very* busy already,
I am not hereby vouching for giving them the load. I also like a lot the
fact that, as a package maintainer, I am kind of free to decide how I
upload to security, without having to be supervised. I would prefer if
stable-security became unsupervised, rather than LTS adding more paperwork.
The rest of the team may feel free to share thoughts, I'd very much
enjoy reading other opinions,
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
