Bug#1035972: isc-dhcp EOL'ed
On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 12:41:05PM -0300, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote: > El 05/07/23 a las 10:26, Moritz Muehlenhoff escribió: > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/debian-security-support/-/merge_requests/16 > > I hope the above mentioned MR reflects the thread consensus. It is been > a long time since I haven't made any change to debian-security-support, > please review it, in case I am doing some stupidity. thanks, the MR looks fine and you're one of the isc-dhcp maintainers, so the content is also fine. will merge after sending this email :) -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ Change is coming whether you like it or not. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1035972: isc-dhcp EOL'ed
El 05/07/23 a las 10:26, Moritz Muehlenhoff escribió: > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 03:17:43PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 10:12:22PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 01:29:28PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:50:34AM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > > > > > > > > > My take would be to mark it as unsupported after the trixie > > > > > development cycle > > > > > has started (this flags awareness, but has no impact on stable > > > > > releases) > > > > > and then revisit the support situation before the trixie freeze (Kea > > > > > might be > > > > > a full replacment by then or maybe it turns out the patch support is > > > > > ensured > > > > > despite upstream's EOL) > > > > > > > > > Hi Moritz, > > > > > > > > Now that bookworm is out and (AFAICT) that the trixie development cycle > > > > has started, are able to go ahead with marking isc-dhcp as unsupported? > > > > > > Ultimately it's the maintainer(s) call, but sounds good to me. > > > > > Are you referring to the maintainer of debian-security-support, or the > > maintainer of isc-dhcp? > > The isc-dhcp maintainers. https://salsa.debian.org/debian/debian-security-support/-/merge_requests/16 I hope the above mentioned MR reflects the thread consensus. It is been a long time since I haven't made any change to debian-security-support, please review it, in case I am doing some stupidity. Cheers, -- S signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1035972: isc-dhcp EOL'ed
On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 03:17:43PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 10:12:22PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 01:29:28PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:50:34AM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > > > > > > > My take would be to mark it as unsupported after the trixie development > > > > cycle > > > > has started (this flags awareness, but has no impact on stable releases) > > > > and then revisit the support situation before the trixie freeze (Kea > > > > might be > > > > a full replacment by then or maybe it turns out the patch support is > > > > ensured > > > > despite upstream's EOL) > > > > > > > Hi Moritz, > > > > > > Now that bookworm is out and (AFAICT) that the trixie development cycle > > > has started, are able to go ahead with marking isc-dhcp as unsupported? > > > > Ultimately it's the maintainer(s) call, but sounds good to me. > > > Are you referring to the maintainer of debian-security-support, or the > maintainer of isc-dhcp? The isc-dhcp maintainers. Cheers, Moritz
Bug#1035972: isc-dhcp EOL'ed
On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 10:12:22PM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 01:29:28PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:50:34AM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > > > > > My take would be to mark it as unsupported after the trixie development > > > cycle > > > has started (this flags awareness, but has no impact on stable releases) > > > and then revisit the support situation before the trixie freeze (Kea > > > might be > > > a full replacment by then or maybe it turns out the patch support is > > > ensured > > > despite upstream's EOL) > > > > > Hi Moritz, > > > > Now that bookworm is out and (AFAICT) that the trixie development cycle > > has started, are able to go ahead with marking isc-dhcp as unsupported? > > Ultimately it's the maintainer(s) call, but sounds good to me. > Are you referring to the maintainer of debian-security-support, or the maintainer of isc-dhcp? Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
Bug#1035972: isc-dhcp EOL'ed
On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 01:29:28PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:50:34AM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > > > My take would be to mark it as unsupported after the trixie development > > cycle > > has started (this flags awareness, but has no impact on stable releases) > > and then revisit the support situation before the trixie freeze (Kea might > > be > > a full replacment by then or maybe it turns out the patch support is ensured > > despite upstream's EOL) > > > Hi Moritz, > > Now that bookworm is out and (AFAICT) that the trixie development cycle > has started, are able to go ahead with marking isc-dhcp as unsupported? Ultimately it's the maintainer(s) call, but sounds good to me. Cheer, Moritz
Bug#1035972: isc-dhcp EOL'ed
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:50:34AM +0200, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > My take would be to mark it as unsupported after the trixie development cycle > has started (this flags awareness, but has no impact on stable releases) > and then revisit the support situation before the trixie freeze (Kea might be > a full replacment by then or maybe it turns out the patch support is ensured > despite upstream's EOL) > Hi Moritz, Now that bookworm is out and (AFAICT) that the trixie development cycle has started, are able to go ahead with marking isc-dhcp as unsupported? Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
Bug#1035972: isc-dhcp EOL'ed
(Sorry, I have forgotten to answer this) El 09/06/23 a las 15:35, Antoine Beaupré escribió: > [adding package maintainer to CC] > > On 2023-05-17 10:50:34, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 08:58:01AM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > >> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 10:08:52AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > >> > > ISC is not longer maintaing any of the components of isc-dhcp (client, > >> > > I propose to mark it as unsupported. Or at least, limited, if we still > >> > > have hope in those security update exceptions they claim they could do. > >> [...] > >> > It's not a service to our users to claim that we will not support them. > >> [...] > >> > But I'm afraid that we will have to keep maintaining those for the > >> > benefit > >> > of our stable/oldstable (and even ELTS) users. I'm pretty sure that all > >> > the other distributions will also continue to maintain those packages for > >> > the lifetime of their respective releases so that we will have > >> > opportunities to share the workload and patches. Yeah, you are right. Sorry for my not-very-clever message, maybe due to my disappointment of this deprecation. > > > > Agreed. > > > >> Given what Raphael wrote, should this bug maybe be about marking isc-dhcp > >> unsupported in trixie? > > > > My take would be to mark it as unsupported after the trixie development > > cycle > > has started (this flags awareness, but has no impact on stable releases) > > and then revisit the support situation before the trixie freeze (Kea might > > be > > a full replacment by then or maybe it turns out the patch support is ensured > > despite upstream's EOL) > > I think this is important enough to warrant an entry in the release > notes. I started working on something to that effect here: > > https://salsa.debian.org/ddp-team/release-notes/-/merge_requests/194 > > Hopefully that makes sense here? > Thanks Antoine for start working on the MR. Cheers, -- S signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1035972: isc-dhcp EOL'ed
[adding package maintainer to CC] On 2023-05-17 10:50:34, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 08:58:01AM +, Holger Levsen wrote: >> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 10:08:52AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >> > > ISC is not longer maintaing any of the components of isc-dhcp (client, >> > > I propose to mark it as unsupported. Or at least, limited, if we still >> > > have hope in those security update exceptions they claim they could do. >> [...] >> > It's not a service to our users to claim that we will not support them. >> [...] >> > But I'm afraid that we will have to keep maintaining those for the benefit >> > of our stable/oldstable (and even ELTS) users. I'm pretty sure that all >> > the other distributions will also continue to maintain those packages for >> > the lifetime of their respective releases so that we will have >> > opportunities to share the workload and patches. > > Agreed. > >> Given what Raphael wrote, should this bug maybe be about marking isc-dhcp >> unsupported in trixie? > > My take would be to mark it as unsupported after the trixie development cycle > has started (this flags awareness, but has no impact on stable releases) > and then revisit the support situation before the trixie freeze (Kea might be > a full replacment by then or maybe it turns out the patch support is ensured > despite upstream's EOL) I think this is important enough to warrant an entry in the release notes. I started working on something to that effect here: https://salsa.debian.org/ddp-team/release-notes/-/merge_requests/194 Hopefully that makes sense here? a.
Bug#1035972: isc-dhcp EOL'ed
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 08:58:01AM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 10:08:52AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > ISC is not longer maintaing any of the components of isc-dhcp (client, > > > I propose to mark it as unsupported. Or at least, limited, if we still > > > have hope in those security update exceptions they claim they could do. > [...] > > It's not a service to our users to claim that we will not support them. > [...] > > But I'm afraid that we will have to keep maintaining those for the benefit > > of our stable/oldstable (and even ELTS) users. I'm pretty sure that all > > the other distributions will also continue to maintain those packages for > > the lifetime of their respective releases so that we will have > > opportunities to share the workload and patches. Agreed. > Given what Raphael wrote, should this bug maybe be about marking isc-dhcp > unsupported in trixie? My take would be to mark it as unsupported after the trixie development cycle has started (this flags awareness, but has no impact on stable releases) and then revisit the support situation before the trixie freeze (Kea might be a full replacment by then or maybe it turns out the patch support is ensured despite upstream's EOL) Cheers, Moritz
Bug#1035972: isc-dhcp EOL'ed
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 10:56:11PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: [...] > Still to early to decide? works for me, thanks. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ "I know what you're thinking" used to be an idiom but now it's a business model. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1035972: isc-dhcp EOL'ed
Hi, On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 08:58:01AM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 10:08:52AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > ISC is not longer maintaing any of the components of isc-dhcp (client, > > > I propose to mark it as unsupported. Or at least, limited, if we still > > > have hope in those security update exceptions they claim they could do. > [...] > > It's not a service to our users to claim that we will not support them. > [...] > > But I'm afraid that we will have to keep maintaining those for the benefit > > of our stable/oldstable (and even ELTS) users. I'm pretty sure that all > > the other distributions will also continue to maintain those packages for > > the lifetime of their respective releases so that we will have > > opportunities to share the workload and patches. > > Given what Raphael wrote, should this bug maybe be about marking isc-dhcp > unsupported in trixie? > > If not, what else? For bookworm and earlier I tend do agree with Raphael. isc-dhcp server can probably not yet simply be replaced with isc-kea. Though Daniel Baumann reported[1] that they switched whole University network to it. Still to early to decide? [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2023/03/msg00083.html Regards, Salvatore
Bug#1035972: isc-dhcp EOL'ed
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 10:08:52AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > ISC is not longer maintaing any of the components of isc-dhcp (client, > > I propose to mark it as unsupported. Or at least, limited, if we still > > have hope in those security update exceptions they claim they could do. [...] > It's not a service to our users to claim that we will not support them. [...] > But I'm afraid that we will have to keep maintaining those for the benefit > of our stable/oldstable (and even ELTS) users. I'm pretty sure that all > the other distributions will also continue to maintain those packages for > the lifetime of their respective releases so that we will have > opportunities to share the workload and patches. Given what Raphael wrote, should this bug maybe be about marking isc-dhcp unsupported in trixie? If not, what else? -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ So what CAN we actually do? Well, individual decisions (eating less meat, taking public transport, buying less fast fashion) are all important, but we also need to change the system. As you may know, just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions. (@JessicaTheLaw) https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1035972: isc-dhcp EOL'ed
Hello Santiago, On Thu, 11 May 2023, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote: > ISC is not longer maintaing any of the components of isc-dhcp (client, > relay or server): > https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/2022-October/022786.html > https://www.isc.org/blogs/isc-dhcp-eol/ > > I propose to mark it as unsupported. Or at least, limited, if we still > have hope in those security update exceptions they claim they could do. We are speaking of packages that are installed in the vast majority of Debian systems: https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=isc-dhcp It's not a service to our users to claim that we will not support them. This is a reason for us to start moving away from them in unstable/testing (but who will do that? You might want to raise the discussion on -devel and get some bugs filed). But I'm afraid that we will have to keep maintaining those for the benefit of our stable/oldstable (and even ELTS) users. I'm pretty sure that all the other distributions will also continue to maintain those packages for the lifetime of their respective releases so that we will have opportunities to share the workload and patches. Cheers, -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Raphaël Hertzog ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/ ⠈⠳⣄ Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#1035972: isc-dhcp EOL'ed
Source: debian-security-support Version: 1:12+2023.05.04 Severity: normal X-Debbugs-Cc: secur...@debian.org, debian-...@lists.debian.org Dear security and LTS teams, ISC is not longer maintaing any of the components of isc-dhcp (client, relay or server): https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/2022-October/022786.html https://www.isc.org/blogs/isc-dhcp-eol/ I propose to mark it as unsupported. Or at least, limited, if we still have hope in those security update exceptions they claim they could do. Cheers, -- Santiago -- System Information: Debian Release: 12.0 APT prefers testing-security APT policy: (500, 'testing-security'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 6.1.0-7-amd64 (SMP w/16 CPU threads; PREEMPT) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US:en Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled -- debconf information excluded signature.asc Description: PGP signature
