LTS Backports Maverick EOL

[Andy Whitcroft]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 07:06:06AM -0600, Tim Gardner wrote:
> On 04/11/2012 06:28 AM, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> > As Maverick is now officially EOL we will no longer be producing further
> > kernel updates for that release.  This wil orphan any consumers of the
> > LTS Backport Maverick kernel for Lucid.  The security team is recommending
> > we migrate them to a later LTS backport kernel.  I tend to agree it does
> > not seem appropriate to just leave them silently with no further updates.
> > This leaves the question as to where they should be migrated to.  Any jump
> > to a later kernel is going to be risky.
> > 
> > If we are going to jump them to a later LTS backport with the inherant
> > risks it likely makes sense to jump them to the latest LTS backport that
> > exists for their release to gain them the maximum support and prevent
> > us having to do the same again in six months when the following backport
> > drops from support too.
> > 
> > I have a patch in my tree to jump them forward assuming we agree on
> > where they should go.  I propose Oneiric.
> > 
> > Comments?
> > 
> > -apw
> > 
> 
> I think automatically updating to another kernel release is likely more
> dangerous then not having security patches applied.
> 
> What about changing the Maverick kernel meta package reference to point
> at a script that asks the user what they wanna do ?

As in a preinstall script to ask where they want to go

 o Stay here with NO security updates
 o Move to Natty Backport
 o Move to Oneiric Backport

I guess that way they at least find out about it in a forceful way.  I
will talk to the gurus to find out if that is a viable way forward.

-apw