On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:25:44 -0400 Etienne Goyer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11-03-30 11:05 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 30, 2011 10:40:36 AM Chuck Short wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I do not have the statistics in front of me, but I believe most of > >> users are using LTS releases of Ubuntu. The policy of cherrypicking > >> fixes from the development releases does not scale in my opinon. We > >> should offer PPAs for users who want to use a new version of for > >> example Apache. Or go through the list of packages we support and > >> see if we can get it to qualify as a micro release update. > > > > We can also do a lot of this through backports. We are very close > > to having the backports only install packages that users explicitly > > request from backports (just waiting on an LP change that's in > > progress), so it will be much safer to use going forward. > > The mechanism itself is really only half the question. I am more > interested in the level of commitment we are willing to make in > keeping certain key software "fresh" in LTS. Whether we deliver > these in backports, PPA or some other mechanism is really just an > implementation detail, IMHO. > > Right when I brought this up, I was more interested in the burden of tracking down the fixes in upstream code, backporing the fix, and asking for user testing. If you look at: http://people.canonical.com/~chucks/SRUTracker/sru-tracker-bugs.html We have a lot of requests for SRU bug fixes which takes time to fix. Depending on the workload that what have, we do what we can. >From the systems administrator perspective if they want to use newer versions of apache, mysql, etc then great they can use backports/ppa. If they want to be a more cautious then they can still use the *-updates pocket. Its really all about choice in this case. chuck -- ubuntu-server mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
