[ale] LTS doesn't always mean LTS

[Jim Kinney]

That makes sense. 

On April 25, 2016 10:34:55 AM EDT, David Tomaschik <david at systemoverlord.com> wrote:
>My understanding has always been that only 'main' is officially
>supported
>by Canonical as part of the LTS effort.  Packages from other components
>(i.e., universe) do not receive LTS support.
>
>On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 6:40 AM, Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Ouch! That doesn't sound supported at all.
>>
>> Another in a growing list of why I don't use or recommend Ubuntu.
>> In Ubuntu LTS, there's an issue with many packages not receiving
>security
>> updates.
>>
>>
>>
>https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/ubuntu-lts-many-vulnerabilities-despite-long-term-support.385386/
>> ====
>> $ ubuntu-support-status --show-unsupported
>> Support status summary of 'lubuntu':
>>
>> You have 196 packages (8.0%) supported until February 2015 (9m)
>> You have 12 packages (0.5%) supported until January 2017 (9m)
>> You have 1679 packages (68.8%) supported until May 2019 (5y)
>> You have 148 packages (6.1%) supported until May 2017 (3y)
>>
>> You have 101 packages (4.1%) that can not/no-longer be downloaded
>> You have 304 packages (12.5%) that are unsupported
>>
>> No longer downloadable:
>>   <insert huge-ass-list> .......
>>
>> Unsupported:
>>  <insert even-huger-huge-ass-list> .......
>> ====
>> Saw this and freaked out a little! 196 packages have lost support
>already
>> on a
>> 14.04 desktop.  Most are java and perl helpers. The perl stuff
>doesn't
>> bother
>> me, since I use perl-brew for all my real work in perl (never depend
>on the
>> system perl stuff). But there are some ssh2, TLS, and qemu in that
>list
>> too!
>>
>>     Supported until February 2015 (9m):
>>     chromium-browser chromium-browser-l10n expect .... qemu-common
>> libsqlite3-dev libssh2-1 libssh2-1-dev libssl-dev libgnutls-dev
>libgnutls28
>> libgnutlsxx27
>>
>> A non-supported browser is a non-starter for me. This is on my
>primary
>> desktop!
>> Must do something about that, even if it means removal of the
>browser.
>>
>> to see which installed pkgs have and do not have support on your
>boxes.
>> It basically comes down to which repository the packages are in. 
>Just
>> something
>> more to be aware about.
>>
>> Someone did the same thing for Debian and claimed that all the
>package
>> security
>> fixes were back ported to the "supported" releases.
>>
>> Lucy (Canonical), you got some 'splaning to do.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> Ale at ale.org
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> Ale at ale.org
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>David Tomaschik
>OpenPGP: 0x5DEA789B
>https://systemoverlord.com
>david at systemoverlord.com
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ale mailing list
>Ale at ale.org
>http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20160425/059ea164/attachment.html>