UPDATE: Announcement from www.kubuntu.de

[John Ruschmeyer]

Karl Goetz wrote:
> Jan Moren wrote:
>   
>> tis 2006-04-11 klockan 14:08 +0200 skrev Mirjam Wäckerlin:
>>     
>>> ISO-Updates
>>> Is there any problem to integrate patches and security updates into
>>> the install- and live-iso's and to provide updates of the iso's after
>>> 3 months? Bugs do happen.
>>>       
>> And are addressed in the next six-month release.
>>
>> You are saying, in essence, that we should have a three-month
>> stable-unstable release cycle. That does not give many days of actual
>> development in between packaging sycles.
>>
>>
>>     
> no, he said that the updates gained from archive.ubuntu.com in
> (K?)ubuntu-updates and (K?)ubuntu-security should be merged into the cd
> after a certain amount of time (3 months).
> While i agree with the idea in principal it means updating the gpg keys
> and changing packages for the 'stable' branch. So i have to disagree
> with it when the 18 month lifetime is taken into consideration
>   
I agree in principle also, but I'm not sure who would really benefit 
from a mid-cycle update of the install and live isos.

Since, the Ubuntu policy is generally not to update package versions 
within a release (hence no official Firefox 1.5 for breezy), then the 
only updates would be bug fixes and security patches.  The installer 
picks those up automatically at installation, unless you are installing 
without a net connection. Conversely, if you don't have a net 
connection, then the security fixes probably aren't as important.

It makes more sense for the users of the live CD, but where do you draw 
the line on security and package updates? If we do a 3 month update, 
what happens if a big bug shows up at month 4.5 or 5.5?

John