On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 03:12:34PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: >Hi, > >Steve McIntyre <st...@einval.com> (2016-07-04): >> There's something I've been pondering for a while, along with some >> other folks - it might be useful to do a "jessie and a half" release, >> similarly to what we did in the etch days. That's *basically* just >> like a normal jessie release, but with a few key updates: >> >> * backports kernel > >That's a given. > >> * rebuilt d-i to match that kernel > >You know there are patches around for that.
ACK. :-) >> * X drivers > >I don't see backports for them. I installed a backport Intel xserver driver over the weekend at the installfest, and it helped the user in question. >> * ... (other things that might be needed for consistency) >> >> all rolled up with a small installer image build (netinst, maybe >> DVD#1). > >That'd probably make it easy to decide how to resolve open questions >with my "d-i vs. backported kernel" patches. Cool. >> Is anybody else interested in helping? Thoughts/comments? > >Questions: > 1. Is it going to pick pieces from backports only? (See X question > above.) That's my current plan, unless people have good arguments otherwise. > 2. Does it have to be called "jessie and a half"? (How much is the > concept understood across users? Wouldn't it be a better idea to > squeeze the "backports" concept into the name somehow?) I'm not attached to any particular name. Something like "Jessie Backport August 2016" would work for me too - suggest a better name? > 3. What about security support once the system is installed? (Which > can be answered along with 1., I suppose.) Most of the core packages I'd expect to use in backports are seeing regular updates AFAICS. That's probably enough? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com You lock the door And throw away the key There's someone in my head but it's not me
