[PureOS] Let's stablize PureoS Green

[Jeremiah C. Foster]

On Thu, 2019-03-14 at 15:10 -0500, Omar wrote:
> 
> On 3/14/19 1:52 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> 
> > Quoting Jeremiah C. Foster (2019-03-14 18:57:44)
> > > What do those folks on this mailing list think? Should we keep
> > > PureOS 
> > > Green on Debian (Buster) Stable?
> > 
> > Above is strongly tied the related question of what to do about
> > cravings 
> > for exciting new $stuff as Buster (non-)evolves to become steadily
> > more 
> > boring over its multi-year lifespan.
> 
> I might give you another perspective from an intermediate user. What
> some of you 'OS nerds' ;) consider boring, I'm guessing the majority
> of our customers see it as a very functional, cool as-is tool to get
> things done. As long as privacy and security improvements don't get
> stagnant... And any customer that may be as advanced as you guys,
> will know the ways to make it un-boring :)

+1

I think the majority of our enterprise user base will feel the exact
same way. 

> > Do we...
> > 
> >  a) Tell users to wait for it to become boring enough?

Yes.

> >  b) Maintain a local fork as .deb in PureOS for each wish?
> >  c) Maintain a local flatpak for each wish?

flatpak is going to be installed on the system so those who want
cutting edge can turn to that. 

> >  d) Tell users to include .deb/flatpack maintained elsewhere?
> > 
> > With a) I say yes let's do it.  But I expect others in the company
> > to 
> > not really want that option for several years, not even for
> > enterprise 
> > users.

What evidence supports this? I've generally received positive feedback
when talking about stability with the move to Debian Stable from other
parts of PureOS. I have received some anecdotal evidence along the lines you've stated, that 5 years is too long, but two years may be reasonable. H

What about providing a dist-upgrade to Bullseye when it is stable?

> >  Testing that is simple: Imagine PureOS being Stretch until 6 
> > months from now (i.e. until Buster becomes boring _and_ we finish 
> > testing that it really truly is boring also with our adaptations).
> > 
> > With b) I say no: We lack manpower, procedures, and infrastructure
> > to 
> > handle that - including security tracking but also other things.
> > 
> > With c) I say that those responsible for flatpack maintenance need
> > to 
> > evaluate when they are ready - including security tracking but
> > also 
> > other things.  Which implies that it is a no if PureOS team has
> > that 
> > responsibility.
> > 
> > With d) I say no: It is irresponsible of us to point our users 
> > elsewhere.

I think your points here are all valid and ought to be kept in mind.

Regards,

jeremiah
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.puri.sm/pipermail/pureos-project/attachments/20190314/1f862eba/attachment.sig>