[PureOS] Bits from PureOS | Sharks!
Jeremiah C. Foster
jeremiah.foster at puri.sm
Wed Jul 31 08:08:32 PDT 2019
On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 13:22 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 21:09 Uhr schrieb Jeremiah C. Foster
> <jeremiah.foster at puri.sm>:
> > On Tue, 2019-07-30 at 19:52 +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > The more severe consequences of going with that (essentially
> > > option B
> > > from
> > > https://lists.puri.sm/pipermail/pureos-project/2019-July/000167.html
> > > ) is that we need to hack the user's sources.list somehow in
> > > order to
> > > support this scenario.
> > Can we not ask those who want a rolling release to edit
> > /etc/apt/sources.list themselves? This is already explained in
> > various
> > places:
> > https://tracker.pureos.net/w/pureos/software_center/software_sources/
> No, that is not the problem here. The problem is all users of green
> having only the green suite mentioned in their sources.list, since no
> -updates or -security suites exist for a rolling-release distribution
> (and that's what PureOS is currently designed for).
> So actually, all users of green would have to update their
> sources.list to still have security updates, which I really don't
> think is possible if they manually do that - we can't reach every
> of green with a blogpost.
> (that's why we either need to find a way to do that automatically,
While this approach is tempting, there be dragons.
> just keep green rolling and create a new stable suite that existing
> users can opt-in instead)
I'm starting to feel this may be the best alternative. I do worry that
there will be a flood of packages coming in however it we go down this
path - can we manage that?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Pureos-project