SRU policy: Allow new features in LTSes under certain conditions

Steve Langasek steve.langasek at
Tue Sep 15 16:03:07 UTC 2015

Hi Martin,

On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 05:45:26PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> occasionaly we get a request to introduce a new package into LTSes.
> This is usually unproblematic as there is a miniscule chance to break
> existing installations (unless the Package uses
> Conflicts:/Replaces:/Provides:), which should obviously not be
> allowed). In July however we got a more intrusive request for
> introducing Ubuntu FAN into trusty [1]. This was granted a special
> exception by the TB, but it would be good to generalize the principles
> upon we agreed to this.

> I therefore propose the following amendment to the policy, relative to
> the changes proposed in [2].

> [1]
> [2]

> -- 
> Martin Pitt                        |
> Ubuntu Developer (  | Debian Developer  (

I would add to this:

> --- StableReleaseUpdates.specialcases	2015-09-01 16:33:58.559594596 +0200
> +++ StableReleaseUpdates.newfeatures	2015-09-01 17:41:37.611778569 +0200
> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@
>   * Bugs which do not fit under above categories, but (1) have an obviously safe patch and (2) affect an application rather than critical infrastructure packages (like or the kernel).
>   * For Long Term Support releases we regularly want to enable new hardware. Such changes are appropriate provided that we can ensure not to affect upgrades on existing hardware. For example, modaliases of newly introduced drivers must not overlap with previously shipped drivers. This also includes updating hardware description data such as udev's keymaps, media-player-info, mobile broadband vendors, or PCI vendor/product list updates.
> + * For Long Term Support releases we sometimes want to introduce new features. They must not change the behaviour on existing installations (e. g. entirely new packages are usually fine). If existing software needs to be modified to make use of the new feature, it must be demonstrated that these changes are unintrusive, have a minimal regression potential, and have been tested properly.

Once a new package has been introduced in a stable release, subsequent
uploads of the package are subject to the usual requirements of SRUs to
avoid regressions.

>   * New versions of commercial software in the Canonical partner archive.
>   * '''FTBFS'''(Fails To Build From Source) can also be considered. Please note that in '''main''' the release process ensures that there are no binaries which are not built from a current source. Usually those bugs should only be SRUed in conjunction with another bug fix.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                          
slangasek at                                     vorlon at
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the technical-board mailing list