| 1 |
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 6:44 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Status: resolved/fixed, with the git commit listed/linked, less than two |
| 4 |
> weeks after filing. =:^) Tho of course a release with the fix hasn't yet |
| 5 |
> been made, and a fix in under two weeks there without even a comment in |
| 6 |
> over a month on the IPv4-only bug doesn't bode so well for the latter. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I don't think systemd has any kind of stable release strategy, and I |
| 9 |
think that is going to become a problem. There are a lot of cases |
| 10 |
where there are dramatic behavior changes or big feature changes, and |
| 11 |
they're mixed in with fixes. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
So, you can't use 219 because it lacks fixes to some bugs. |
| 14 |
Systemd-220 will probably fix those, and change who-knows-what else. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
They're relying on distros to backport fixes for them, essentially. |
| 17 |
Gentoo has been doing just that, but this just means that Gentoo's |
| 18 |
stable version of systemd is different from Debian or Arch's, and so |
| 19 |
on. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
For such a critical piece of software they really ought to start some |
| 22 |
fixes branches with minor releases. They don't necessarily need to |
| 23 |
have 5-year LTS releases (though I'm sure they'd be appreciated |
| 24 |
considering the nature of the software), but having some minor |
| 25 |
releases for the last major version or two certainly wouldn't hurt. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Rich |
Archives