[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       qubes-devel
Subject:    Re: [qubes-devel] guest OS support matrix
From:       Holger Levsen <holger () layer-acht ! org>
Date:       2016-01-27 13:02:32
Message-ID: 201601271402.37642.holger () layer-acht ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


Hi,

sorry to chime in so late… 

On Mittwoch, 13. Januar 2016, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> Actually we don't have even official statement about which Qubes
> versions are supported...
> We should work on it, thanks for bringing it up!

absolutly.
 
> > Where supported means you (ITL/Qubes developers) provide qubes related
> > packages for a specific Qubes release.
> > 
> > I mainly interested about fedora releases - but the same info would be
> > helpful about other distributions as well for sure.
> 
> I think the answer here is (in practice):
> R2: fc21 (which is no longer supported by Fedora)
> R3.0: fc21, (fc22), fc23
> R3.1: fc21, (fc22), fc23
> 
> And for Debian it would be:
> R3.0: (wheezy) jessie
> R3.1: (wheezy) jessie (stretch)

I think documenting this on the webpage would be great.

> I think we should have some clear policy on that.

absolutly. I think having such a policy and documenting it, is even more 
important than what the policy is exactly ;-) (well… within limits…)

> For both supporting a
> Qubes versions and VM templates. Some proposition:
> We support (release updates with bug fixes) for the most recent Qubes
> stable version and for the previous stable version up until a year after
> releasing the current one.
[...]
> Generally IMO we should encourage users to upgrade to newest available
> version, so maybe even harder policy, like:
>  - full support up to 6 months after releasing the next stable release
>  - security fixes only, within next 6 months
> 
> What do you all think about it?

sounds great.

> Then it goes to supporting OS versions. Here we have additional factor
> of upstream support. For Debian it isn't a problem (or rather:
> limitation), because of quite long support. But for Fedora it may be.
> Any proposition here?

support RHEL/CentOS as well? Those have long term support.

> And BTW ideally we'd like to have Stable Release Manager, who would
> classify which patches deserve such backport and would do it. So, if
> anyone is interested in helping us here, please let us know!

I think this would also be good to have mentioned on the webpage and/or 
elsewhere so it stays visible.



BTW, some people have mentioned paid long term support for Qubes, I'm not sure 
how this can work in practice, because (most of) Qubes is GPL licenced, 
meaning if you distribute the binaries, you have to provide sources to anyone 
who's asking. Hm, now that I write it I see how this could: provide binaries 
for money only, but provide free sources to everyone… people who are 
interested in running LTS versions are probably also happy not having to 
compile things themselves…


cheers,
	Holger

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]