On Tue, 26 Aug 2014, Kaj Ailomaa wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014, at 10:22 PM, Jimmy Sjölund wrote:
I'm not sure how backporting works, but if that would mean the users
would
have a LTS base and get newer applications I think that might be the best
way to go. Also with some documentation on how to preserve the "ordinary"
LTS versions if one doesn't want to upgrade applications.
Backporting basically means uploading a package (and possible
dependencies), from the standard repository pocket of the newer release
to the ubuntu-backports pocket of the target release. If the backports
pocket is enabled in the apt sources file, the user will be able to
update to the newer version of the package.
In an ideal situation, the package has no dependencies that have to be
backported too, in which case it is quite a simple job. But, many
packages will require updating system libraries, etc, and in that case
it may be more difficult to get the backport approved (I am told).
We haven't yet done any backporting, so I at least have no experience in
the procedure. One will need to test the backport in a PPA, just like
with an SRU (Stable Release Update), before the upload can be approved.
User POV https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports
Dev POV https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports
In an ideal world we would do both. Backporting and have another version
every 6 months (or until Ubuntu changes the release schedule), but with
the
size of the team and shortness of time already that's for the future.
/Jimmy
We don't really do that much extra work for the ISOs, so it's not like
we should stop doing them because of the work load. But, perhaps, start
focusing more on the LTS and start doing some serious backporting (which
has been planned for a while, but no one has really put their teeth into
it yet).
We could put more emphasis on the LTS and recommend our users to install
that over the latest release on our home page. And design the download
page so that the LTS will seem like the logical first choice.
Ever since I started using Ubuntu I couldn't see the point of 6 month releases
from the point of view of time. 6 months allows little time for development and
testing. LTS is fine but in the second year the updates are more. Often there
are updates rectifying problems which should have been dealt with before
release... the negative of having a fixed release date.
Recently there has been suggestions that Ubuntu becomes rolling release
following the Mint development. I've always thought that an annual release was
about right. It gives enough time for full development and testing. My humble
thoughts!
james
--
ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
