Bits frm PureOS | Buster edition
Congratulations to all the DDs on this list for their work on Buster! Thank you! I'm sure there are many, many people out there grateful for your contribution. My next question naturally is; is PureOS Green going to continue to track Buster? This was a question we brought up in March: https://lists.puri.sm/pipermail/pureos-project/2019-March/000069.html A broader discussion followed that thread and while the shape of consensus seemed to emerge, there were some threads left dangling. Now, as we're being asked by other stakeholders what are plans are, I'd like to be able to announce that PureOS Green is tracking Debian Buster. May I make that announcement? Regards, Jeremiah
On Mon, 2019-07-08 at 10:26 -0400, Jeremiah C. Foster wrote:
Congratulations to all the DDs on this list for their work on Buster! Thank you! I'm sure there are many, many people out there grateful for your contribution.
My next question naturally is; is PureOS Green going to continue to track Buster? This was a question we brought up in March: https://lists.puri.sm/pipermail/pureos-project/2019-March/000069.html
A broader discussion followed that thread and while the shape of consensus seemed to emerge, there were some threads left dangling. Now, as we're being asked by other stakeholders what are plans are, I'd like to be able to announce that PureOS Green is tracking Debian Buster.
May I make that announcement?
Well, I do not want to command anything here but I would appreciate the plan very much. At some point we need to start stabilizing PureOS. It took almost two years for Buster to be released and I think we can not afford to wait another two years for the next Debian 11 release. So better bite the bullet now than later. I also think that we will rather sooner than later need to provide a stable OS distribution to commercial and enterprise customers, for which the current rolling release based on testing is not suited. Of course there are challenges involved, like needing bleeding edge packages for the phone which still did not make it into Buster. For these we need to find ways how to accommodate the situation - be stable but still for some hand curated things have more current bits and pieces. Also this problem will not solve itself with the next Debian release, it will stay the same and next release there will be other newer packages we need for $SOMETHING. So also here, better try to come up with an acceptable solution now. Yes, it will hurt a bit, but like removing a band-aid - postponing it does not solve the pain, better do it now and quickly :)
Regards, Jeremiah Cheers nicole
-- Purism SPC https://puri.sm
Dear Nicole,
Of course there are challenges involved, like needing bleeding edge packages [and any problems] will stay the same and next release there will be other newer packages we need for $SOMETHING. So also here, better try to come up with an acceptable solution now.
Thank you for sharing this but moreover happening to elucidate my own position so clearly — this, at the very least, will push off my inevitable RSI by another hour or so into the future... However, we need not phrase it quite so "practically" and with a tone of resigned regret - we will not be the only distribution who will be basing ourselves on buster and making non-trivial backports etc. :) Best wishes, -- Chris Lamb https://puri.sm
Quoting Nicole Faerber (2019-07-08 11:41:13)
On Mon, 2019-07-08 at 10:26 -0400, Jeremiah C. Foster wrote:
Congratulations to all the DDs on this list for their work on Buster! Thank you! I'm sure there are many, many people out there grateful for your contribution.
My next question naturally is; is PureOS Green going to continue to track Buster? This was a question we brought up in March: https://lists.puri.sm/pipermail/pureos-project/2019-March/000069.html
A broader discussion followed that thread and while the shape of consensus seemed to emerge, there were some threads left dangling. Now, as we're being asked by other stakeholders what are plans are, I'd like to be able to announce that PureOS Green is tracking Debian Buster.
May I make that announcement?
Well, I do not want to command anything here but I would appreciate the plan very much. At some point we need to start stabilizing PureOS. It took almost two years for Buster to be released and I think we can not afford to wait another two years for the next Debian 11 release. So better bite the bullet now than later. I also think that we will rather sooner than later need to provide a stable OS distribution to commercial and enterprise customers, for which the current rolling release based on testing is not suited.
Of course there are challenges involved, like needing bleeding edge packages for the phone which still did not make it into Buster. For these we need to find ways how to accommodate the situation - be stable but still for some hand curated things have more current bits and pieces. Also this problem will not solve itself with the next Debian release, it will stay the same and next release there will be other newer packages we need for $SOMETHING. So also here, better try to come up with an acceptable solution now.
Yes, it will hurt a bit, but like removing a band-aid - postponing it does not solve the pain, better do it now and quickly :)
I am confused by above posts from folks I thought took lead with regards to PureOS. Is it still an open question _if_ we want PureOS green to track Debian Buster, and that is what we discuss in this email thread? Or is that already decided and instead the topic now is _how_ (leading to _when_ it is adequately done that it can be announced)? Those seems very different email topics to me. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
On Mon, 2019-07-08 at 11:58 -0300, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Nicole Faerber (2019-07-08 11:41:13)
On Mon, 2019-07-08 at 10:26 -0400, Jeremiah C. Foster wrote:
Yes, it will hurt a bit, but like removing a band-aid - postponing it does not solve the pain, better do it now and quickly :)
I am confused by above posts from folks I thought took lead with regards to PureOS.
Is it still an open question _if_ we want PureOS green to track Debian Buster, and that is what we discuss in this email thread?
No. The question is settled; Green will move to Buster. The only question is when is the appropriate time to make an announcement. Regards, Jeremiah
Quoting Jeremiah C. Foster (2019-07-08 13:01:58)
On Mon, 2019-07-08 at 11:58 -0300, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Nicole Faerber (2019-07-08 11:41:13)
On Mon, 2019-07-08 at 10:26 -0400, Jeremiah C. Foster wrote:
Yes, it will hurt a bit, but like removing a band-aid - postponing it does not solve the pain, better do it now and quickly :)
I am confused by above posts from folks I thought took lead with regards to PureOS.
Is it still an open question _if_ we want PureOS green to track Debian Buster, and that is what we discuss in this email thread?
No.
The question is settled; Green will move to Buster. The only question is when is the appropriate time to make an announcement.
Thanks a lot for the clarification - helps simplify conversation :-) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
[Re-sending, as the mailinglist rejected the previous message for some reason] Am Mo., 8. Juli 2019 um 16:58 Uhr schrieb Jonas Smedegaard <jonas.smedegaard@puri.sm>:
Quoting Nicole Faerber (2019-07-08 11:41:13)
[...]
I am confused by above posts from folks I thought took lead with regards to PureOS.
Is it still an open question _if_ we want PureOS green to track Debian Buster, and that is what we discuss in this email thread?
Or is that already decided and instead the topic now is _how_ (leading to _when_ it is adequately done that it can be announced)?
Those seems very different email topics to me.
Indeed. As a matter of fact, PureOS green is already tracking bullseye at the moment. If we want a version of PureOS based on Debian stable, that would have to be a new suite, otherwise we would throw all of our users out of security support immediately. There is also the problem of us having advertised PureOS as (semi) rolling so far, and the PureOS team being completely unable to handle any enterprise stuff with its current manpower. We can just about support development of one suite, handling fixes and security support for two would be really really hard. Cheers, Matthias P.S: I made a "stale" suite fork of the "green" PureOS suite, so we have a stable-ish point of reference to use, in case we go with having a suite that tracks stable (as green is accumulating packages from Debian testing already).
On Mon, 2019-07-08 at 19:04 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
[Re-sending, as the mailinglist rejected the previous message for some reason]
Am Mo., 8. Juli 2019 um 16:58 Uhr schrieb Jonas Smedegaard <jonas.smedegaard@puri.sm>:
Quoting Nicole Faerber (2019-07-08 11:41:13)
[...]
I am confused by above posts from folks I thought took lead with regards to PureOS.
Is it still an open question _if_ we want PureOS green to track Debian Buster, and that is what we discuss in this email thread?
Or is that already decided and instead the topic now is _how_ (leading to _when_ it is adequately done that it can be announced)?
Those seems very different email topics to me.
Indeed. As a matter of fact, PureOS green is already tracking bullseye at the moment. If we want a version of PureOS based on Debian stable, that would have to be a new suite, otherwise we would throw all of our users out of security support immediately.
Why? Buster has security support as well.
There is also the problem of us having advertised PureOS as (semi) rolling so far,
I think that we can work with marketing to positively describe the situation. Stability is clearly a more important goal than a rolling release (at least in the internal conversations I've had.)
and the PureOS team being completely unable to handle any enterprise stuff with its current manpower.
I don't understand this. We already do this with Green - why can't we continue?
We can just about support development of one suite, handling fixes and security support for two would be really really hard.
Surely not impossible though? Regards, Jeremiah
Cheers, Matthias
P.S: I made a "stale" suite fork of the "green" PureOS suite, so we have a stable-ish point of reference to use, in case we go with having a suite that tracks stable (as green is accumulating packages from Debian testing already). _______________________________________________ PureOS-project mailing list PureOS-project@lists.puri.sm https://lists.puri.sm/listinfo/pureos-project
Hey :-) Sorry for the delayed reply... Am Mo., 8. Juli 2019 um 19:10 Uhr schrieb Jeremiah C. Foster <jeremiah.foster@puri.sm>:
On Mon, 2019-07-08 at 19:04 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
[...] Indeed. As a matter of fact, PureOS green is already tracking bullseye at the moment. If we want a version of PureOS based on Debian stable, that would have to be a new suite, otherwise we would throw all of our users out of security support immediately.
Why? Buster has security support as well.
It has, but if green is frozen our users won't get any of the updates. All of our users will have the "green" suite only in their sources.list currently, but that will be frozen and not receive any more updates, just like the buster suite is frozen in Debian now. Instead, a green-updates and maybe green-security suite needs to be created and added to the user's sources.list if they still want to receive updates. This is a manual step, and if our users don't know about it, they won't receive any updates. There are solutions to this: A) Merge updates into the "green" suite. This is not really supported in Laniakea (because it's usually a bad idea ^^) and will result in us being unable to stop distribution of an update once it's released, require users to do bigger metadata downloads on archive updates, not allow for much access control during updates and will make it hard for users to opt-out receiving certain updates. I don't actually know any distribution that does this. B) Implement some hack in a package that every "green" users installs (apt?) to rewrite sources.list That's also ugly but ensures every sources.list is changed - if the script is written well and doesn't have sideeffects. C) Keep "green" as rolling development target, create new suite with the released, stable packages and switch PureOS deployment over to that for new Librems We'd need a new suite name, but other than that this would be similar to what Ubuntu does as well. In the long run we might somehow get rid of "green" to avoid the additional branching-off of suites when releasing a new stable release, or alternatively embrace that step as development model. Making "green" an alias to the respective current development suite of PureOS (like testing is an alias for "next Debian stable suite") is probably the best solution in this case. That would effectively give us a workflow like Ubuntu for making PureOS releases. I would heavily favour C, so C >> B > A That would be the cleanest possible cut we could do. B doesn't feel like a great idea, but might be a compromise, A feels like the wrong thing to do.
There is also the problem of us having advertised PureOS as (semi) rolling so far,
I think that we can work with marketing to positively describe the situation. Stability is clearly a more important goal than a rolling release (at least in the internal conversations I've had.)
and the PureOS team being completely unable to handle any enterprise stuff with its current manpower.
I don't understand this. We already do this with Green - why can't we continue?
We will have to track updates to our stable branch but also keep our development branch (likely still based on testing) maintained. That is quite a bit of effort. We do need a development branch both for the phone team, but also for testing new changes and adapting our code to work with the next release of Debian, so we don't get hit with all the changes once Bullseye is released.
We can just about support development of one suite, handling fixes and security support for two would be really really hard.
Surely not impossible though?
Nothing is impossible ;-) But we do need adequate manpower to handle things reliably. With Jonas mainly working on services now, we are really short of engineers for the OS itself. Cheers, Matthias
On Wed, 2019-07-10 at 22:28 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
Hey :-) Sorry for the delayed reply...
Am Mo., 8. Juli 2019 um 19:10 Uhr schrieb Jeremiah C. Foster <jeremiah.foster@puri.sm>:
On Mon, 2019-07-08 at 19:04 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
[...] Indeed. As a matter of fact, PureOS green is already tracking bullseye at the moment. If we want a version of PureOS based on Debian stable, that would have to be a new suite, otherwise we would throw all of our users out of security support immediately.
Why? Buster has security support as well.
It has, but if green is frozen our users won't get any of the updates. All of our users will have the "green" suite only in their sources.list currently, but that will be frozen and not receive any more updates, just like the buster suite is frozen in Debian now.
I see. I thought that Debian stable releases were still rolling, but I think I'm mistaken. What really happens is that security fixes and updates get "backported" into stable from testing / unstable?
Instead, a green-updates and maybe green-security suite needs to be created and added to the user's sources.list if they still want to receive updates. This is a manual step, and if our users don't know about it, they won't receive any updates.
Okay. This makes it a lot clearer to me. I naively thought it happened automagically.
There are solutions to this:
A) Merge updates into the "green" suite. This is not really supported in Laniakea (because it's usually a bad idea ^^) and will result in us being unable to stop distribution of an update once it's released, require users to do bigger metadata downloads on archive updates, not allow for much access control during updates and will make it hard for users to opt-out receiving certain updates. I don't actually know any distribution that does this.
B) Implement some hack in a package that every "green" users installs (apt?) to rewrite sources.list That's also ugly but ensures every sources.list is changed - if the script is written well and doesn't have sideeffects.
I'd like to know more about this approach, what does it entail? Would we; 1. Create green-updates and green-security 2. Find a way to get all green users to put it in their /etc/apt/sources.d/ dir? Perhaps we could do both a simple script and to print clear instructions in our forum on how to do this.
C) Keep "green" as rolling development target, create new suite with the released, stable packages and switch PureOS deployment over to that for new Librems
Wouldn't it be easier to keep the new suite as 'green'? That way we would have fewer changes to apt sources lists.
We'd need a new suite name,
Another color? :-)
but other than that this would be similar to what Ubuntu does as well. In the long run we might somehow get rid of "green" to avoid the additional branching-off of suites when releasing a new stable release, or alternatively embrace that step as development model. Making "green" an alias to the respective current development suite of PureOS (like testing is an alias for "next Debian stable suite") is probably the best solution in this case. That would effectively give us a workflow like Ubuntu for making PureOS releases.
I see. I think I understand too.
I would heavily favour C, so C >> B > A That would be the cleanest possible cut we could do.
Agreed.
B doesn't feel like a great idea, but might be a compromise, A feels like the wrong thing to do.
Also agreed.
There is also the problem of us having advertised PureOS as (semi) rolling so far,
I think that we can work with marketing to positively describe the situation. Stability is clearly a more important goal than a rolling release (at least in the internal conversations I've had.)
and the PureOS team being completely unable to handle any enterprise stuff with its current manpower.
I don't understand this. We already do this with Green - why can't we continue?
We will have to track updates to our stable branch but also keep our development branch (likely still based on testing) maintained. That is quite a bit of effort.
Good point. There is a real effort to get more resources around PureOS.
We do need a development branch both for the phone team, but also for testing new changes and adapting our code to work with the next release of Debian, so we don't get hit with all the changes once Bullseye is released.
We can just about support development of one suite, handling fixes and security support for two would be really really hard.
Surely not impossible though?
Nothing is impossible ;-) But we do need adequate manpower to handle things reliably. With Jonas mainly working on services now, we are really short of engineers for the OS itself.
+1 Regards, Jeremiah
Am Do., 11. Juli 2019 um 22:01 Uhr schrieb Jeremiah C. Foster <jeremiah.foster@puri.sm>:
On Wed, 2019-07-10 at 22:28 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
[...]
It has, but if green is frozen our users won't get any of the updates. All of our users will have the "green" suite only in their sources.list currently, but that will be frozen and not receive any more updates, just like the buster suite is frozen in Debian now.
I see. I thought that Debian stable releases were still rolling, but I think I'm mistaken. What really happens is that security fixes and updates get "backported" into stable from testing / unstable?
Instead, a green-updates and maybe green-security suite needs to be created and added to the user's sources.list if they still want to receive updates. This is a manual step, and if our users don't know about it, they won't receive any updates.
Okay. This makes it a lot clearer to me. I naively thought it happened automagically.
Unfortunately not, this all needs to be done manually in dak, and somehow applied to the user's machines.
There are solutions to this:
A) Merge updates into the "green" suite. This is not really supported in Laniakea (because it's usually a bad idea ^^) and will result in us being unable to stop distribution of an update once it's released, require users to do bigger metadata downloads on archive updates, not allow for much access control during updates and will make it hard for users to opt-out receiving certain updates. I don't actually know any distribution that does this.
B) Implement some hack in a package that every "green" users installs (apt?) to rewrite sources.list That's also ugly but ensures every sources.list is changed - if the script is written well and doesn't have sideeffects.
I'd like to know more about this approach, what does it entail? Would we;
1. Create green-updates and green-security 2. Find a way to get all green users to put it in their /etc/apt/sources.d/ dir?
Yes. But we would likely need to rewrite their /etc/apt/sources.list, as these suites are commonly located there and if we put snippets into sources.list.d, future documentation may be more confusing to people. Doing this automatically is possible, but ugly. Getting *all* our users to know about it to do that themselves is something I am not sure is possible (and if they don't know, they will be out of security support).
Perhaps we could do both a simple script and to print clear instructions in our forum on how to do this.
C) Keep "green" as rolling development target, create new suite with the released, stable packages and switch PureOS deployment over to that for new Librems
Wouldn't it be easier to keep the new suite as 'green'? That way we would have fewer changes to apt sources lists.
With this solution we wouldn't need any changes to the sources.list. People who want the rolling development target just stay on green, no changes necessary. People who want the stable distro modify their sources.list to switch to that. And people who get a new Librem will have the new "stable" falvour of PureOS installed by default.
We'd need a new suite name,
Another color? :-)
If we are a bit liberal with those, we could use names like https://graf1x.com/list-of-colors-with-color-names/ It would be neat to have codenames alphabetically sortable (so start with PureOS 8 "Amber", followe by PureOS 9 "Byzantine", etc.)
[...]
Cheers, Matthias
Quoting Matthias Klumpp (2019-07-08 14:04:20)
[Re-sending, as the mailinglist rejected the previous message for some reason]
Am Mo., 8. Juli 2019 um 16:58 Uhr schrieb Jonas Smedegaard <jonas.smedegaard@puri.sm>:
Quoting Nicole Faerber (2019-07-08 11:41:13)
[...]
I am confused by above posts from folks I thought took lead with regards to PureOS.
Is it still an open question _if_ we want PureOS green to track Debian Buster, and that is what we discuss in this email thread?
Or is that already decided and instead the topic now is _how_ (leading to _when_ it is adequately done that it can be announced)?
Those seems very different email topics to me.
Indeed. As a matter of fact, PureOS green is already tracking bullseye at the moment.
Can you then please "hit the breaks" to not contaminate green any further? It seems to me that only ~8 hours ago (i.e. after your writing above) did Bullseye receive its first chunk of migrations from unstable - and I believe we also have some days of buffer from landing to green before that change affects our users. Regardless of those details, please stop all migration frmo landing to green to minimize the mess we need to custom-handle!!! - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
On Tue, 2019-07-09 at 08:44 -0300, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Matthias Klumpp (2019-07-08 14:04:20)
[Re-sending, as the mailinglist rejected the previous message for some reason]
Am Mo., 8. Juli 2019 um 16:58 Uhr schrieb Jonas Smedegaard <jonas.smedegaard@puri.sm>:
Quoting Nicole Faerber (2019-07-08 11:41:13)
[...]
Indeed. As a matter of fact, PureOS green is already tracking bullseye at the moment.
Can you then please "hit the breaks" to not contaminate green any further?
I believe this has been done, please see: https://lists.puri.sm/pipermail/pureos-project/2019-July/000157.html Here's a quote from that email (at the bottom); "P.S: I made a "stale" suite fork of the "green" PureOS suite, so we have a stable-ish point of reference to use, in case we go with having a suite that tracks stable (as green is accumulating packages from Debian testing already)."
It seems to me that only ~8 hours ago (i.e. after your writing above) did Bullseye receive its first chunk of migrations from unstable - and I believe we also have some days of buffer from landing to green before that change affects our users.
Yes, I think you're right. I haven't seen any new packages come in yet when I do apt update.
Regardless of those details, please stop all migration frmo landing to green to minimize the mess we need to custom-handle!!!
I think a single exclamation point is sufficient. :-) It would be great to better understand Laniakea and the way it works. This would allow us to better estimate the work involved and to help. It also would help us determine resource needs and get the requisite resources to the work needed. I would really appreciate a discussion in this area and hope to hear from Matthias when he's available for such a discussion. Regards, Jeremiah
Quoting Jeremiah C. Foster (2019-07-09 12:05:12)
On Tue, 2019-07-09 at 08:44 -0300, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Matthias Klumpp (2019-07-08 14:04:20)
Indeed. As a matter of fact, PureOS green is already tracking bullseye at the moment.
Can you then please "hit the breaks" to not contaminate green any further?
I believe this has been done, please see: https://lists.puri.sm/pipermail/pureos-project/2019-July/000157.html
Here's a quote from that email (at the bottom); "P.S: I made a "stale" suite fork of the "green" PureOS suite, so we have a stable-ish point of reference to use, in case we go with having a suite that tracks stable (as green is accumulating packages from Debian testing already)."
Well, Matthias knows best what Matthias has done but I can only read above quotes as a) our users of green will continue to receive Debian testing packages and b) new user can receive Debian stable packages (when an installer is created for that).
Regardless of those details, please stop all migration frmo landing to green to minimize the mess we need to custom-handle!!! I think a single exclamation point is sufficient. :-)
Why? Because we don't want to stabilise PureOS now after all? Or because a bunch of helping hands is getting hired as we speak to help maintain the delta we now create between Debian stable and whenever we stop letting Debian testing packages into green? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Am Di., 9. Juli 2019 um 23:11 Uhr schrieb Jonas Smedegaard <jonas.smedegaard@puri.sm>:
Quoting Jeremiah C. Foster (2019-07-09 12:05:12)
On Tue, 2019-07-09 at 08:44 -0300, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Matthias Klumpp (2019-07-08 14:04:20)
Indeed. As a matter of fact, PureOS green is already tracking bullseye at the moment.
Can you then please "hit the breaks" to not contaminate green any further?
I believe this has been done, please see: https://lists.puri.sm/pipermail/pureos-project/2019-July/000157.html
Here's a quote from that email (at the bottom); "P.S: I made a "stale" suite fork of the "green" PureOS suite, so we have a stable-ish point of reference to use, in case we go with having a suite that tracks stable (as green is accumulating packages from Debian testing already)."
Well, Matthias knows best what Matthias has done but I can only read above quotes as a) our users of green will continue to receive Debian testing packages and b) new user can receive Debian stable packages (when an installer is created for that).
That was indeed what I meant, but after receiving this announcement from Jeremiah I also disabled all synchronization with Debian just as a safety precaution. At the moment, nothing should be synced from Debian to PureOS.
Regardless of those details, please stop all migration frmo landing to green to minimize the mess we need to custom-handle!!! I think a single exclamation point is sufficient. :-)
Why?
Because it could come across as impolite and shouting, like you commanding me to do something. Don't worry about that though ;-)
Because we don't want to stabilise PureOS now after all?
I think it's a good plan, but we should really nail down the "how" soon (see my other mail for that).
Or because a bunch of helping hands is getting hired as we speak to help maintain the delta we now create between Debian stable and whenever we stop letting Debian testing packages into green?
There is none (or just a small one of the first few hours after migration was enabled again in Debian). I still hope that we get more helping hands though. Cheers, Matthias
Quoting Matthias Klumpp (2019-07-10 17:35:14)
after receiving this announcement from Jeremiah I also disabled all synchronization with Debian just as a safety precaution. At the moment, nothing should be synced from Debian to PureOS.
Splendid. Also nice that you mention it to us. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Hi, On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 10:26:03AM -0400, Jeremiah C. Foster wrote:
Congratulations to all the DDs on this list for their work on Buster! Thank you! I'm sure there are many, many people out there grateful for your contribution.
My next question naturally is; is PureOS Green going to continue to track Buster? This was a question we brought up in March: https://lists.puri.sm/pipermail/pureos-project/2019-March/000069.html
A broader discussion followed that thread and while the shape of consensus seemed to emerge, there were some threads left dangling. Now, as we're being asked by other stakeholders what are plans are, I'd like to be able to announce that PureOS Green is tracking Debian Buster.
(I'm deliberately taking a phone only view here to spawn a discussion): I'm aware of three possible scenarios that were discussed (including a recent discussion with heather and matthias): 1. continue as is (track Debian testing) 2. track buster 3. switch to date based snapshots tracking testing
From the phone side 2 is *currently* very convenient since there's no resources for much else *but* the more packages we fork from GNOME and the larger the delta gets 3. will become more interesting (especially when the first storm of migrations to testing is over) so having a longer term idea where PureOS intends to move would be great.
So from the phone side the question and "vision" how are we keeping PureOS stable (that is bug free for our use cases) while merging phone related changes and newer upstream versions needed for the phone into PureOS would be even more interesting. Terms like CI and testing already came up here but I'm not aware of any concrete proposals atm but am happy to read up on provided references. Cheers, -- Guido
May I make that announcement?
Regards,
Jeremiah
_______________________________________________ PureOS-project mailing list PureOS-project@lists.puri.sm https://lists.puri.sm/listinfo/pureos-project
participants (6)
-
Chris Lamb -
Guido Günther -
Jeremiah C. Foster -
Jonas Smedegaard -
Matthias Klumpp -
Nicole Faerber