Ubuntu 16.04 is on 1.6 which is bug-fix "supported" till 2021.  It's
probably fine to deprecate next year.
Ubuntu 18.04 is on 1.8 which is bug-fix "supported" till 2023.

Debian has 1.8 in their stable and 2.0.9 in unstable, but I'm not as
familiar with their release cycles.
RHEL/Centos 7 haproxy package is on 1.5, but they've also provided a
rh-haproxy18 which provides 1.8.

AFAICT from a distro perspective you are pretty good to kill off 1.5.

Dave.
FYI, I'm an Ubuntu Dev if you ever need one.

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 7:00 AM Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 01:33:30PM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> >  ? 25 octobre 2019 11:27 +02, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>:
> >
> > > Now I'm wondering, is anyone interested in this branch to still be
> > > maintained ? Should I emit a new release with a few pending fixes
> > > just to flush the pipe and pursue its "critical fixes only" status a
> > > bit further, or should we simply declare it unmaintained ? I'm fine
> > > with either option, it's just that I hate working for no reason, and
> > > this version was released a bit more than 5 years ago now, so I can
> > > easily expect that it has few to no user by now.
> > >
> > > Please just let me know what you think,
> >
> > What's the conclusion? :)
>
> Oh you're right, I wanted to mention it yesterday but the e-mail delivery
> issues derailed my focus a bit...
>
> So it looks like the most reasonable thing to do is to drop it at the end
> of this year, or exactly 3 years after the last update to the branch! I
> don't expect it to require any new fix at all to be honest. Those using
> it for SSL should really upgrade to something more recent, at least to
> benefit from more recent openssl versions (1.0.1 was probably the last
> supported one) and those who don't need SSL likely didn't even upgrade
> to 1.5 anyway ;-)
>
> So we could say that if anything really critical must happen to 1.5, it
> must happen within one month for it to get a fix and after that it's too
> late.
>
> Cheers,
> Willy
>

Reply via email to