3 ms·

In Ubuntu terms a backport is when a newer version of a package is made available in an existing release. With few exceptions (see MicroReleaseExceptions) vers

In Ubuntu terms a backport is when a newer version of a package is made available in an existing release. With few exceptions (see MicroReleaseExceptions) versions of packages in a distro release are not updated, which is why the backports pockets exist. We certainly provide security updates for packages in main for the LTS lifetime.

kbenson 10y ago
That's unfortunate, as there has been accepted terminology that differentiates those concepts for quite a while in the enterprise distribution space, likely predating Ubuntu's existence. Backports as you describe them here are referred to as "rebasing" in RHEL's parlance. I understand where the difference comes from though, Debian. The problem is that Debian serves a different need, and is not really an "enterprise" distro. That's not to imply it isn't a quality distribution, but their purposes are not necessarily aligned with the needs of organizations which may be managing hundreds or more systems all at once. Debian "backports" newer packages from testing to to current to deal with needed fixes, while enterprise distributions "backport" the patches to make sure the package behavior doesn't inadvertently change due to some other changes in the package during the time since it was first included. Ubuntu's beginnings as an offshoot of Debian show here, but that's where there's a disconnect between the terminology they use and that of most other distributions that target the enterprise (which admittedly Ubuntu only does partially). I can't really blame Ubuntu for their use of the terminology, since it does have historical precedence for them, and they are't even entirely an enterprise distro (by which I mean they also target desktop usage heavily, compared to RHEL which only goes as far that direction as to target workstations, and somewhat halfheartedly IMO).

kbenson 10y ago

That's unfortunate, as there has been accepted terminology that differentiates those concepts for quite a while in the enterprise distribution space, likely predating Ubuntu's existence. Backports as you describe them here are referred to as "rebasing" in RHEL's parlance. I understand where the difference comes from though, Debian. The problem is that Debian serves a different need, and is not really an "enterprise" distro. That's not to imply it isn't a quality distribution, but their purposes are not necessarily aligned with the needs of organizations which may be managing hundreds or more systems all at once. Debian "backports" newer packages from testing to to current to deal with needed fixes, while enterprise distributions "backport" the patches to make sure the package behavior doesn't inadvertently change due to some other changes in the package during the time since it was first included. Ubuntu's beginnings as an offshoot of Debian show here, but that's where there's a disconnect between the terminology they use and that of most other distributions that target the enterprise (which admittedly Ubuntu only does partially). I can't really blame Ubuntu for their use of the terminology, since it does have historical precedence for them, and they are't even entirely an enterprise distro (by which I mean they also target desktop usage heavily, compared to RHEL which only goes as far that direction as to target workstations, and somewhat halfheartedly IMO).