From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AA911FF187 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2025 12:40:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8A9741AF52; Mon, 3 Nov 2025 12:41:12 +0100 (CET) From: Robert Obkircher To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2025 12:40:18 +0100 Message-ID: <20251103114055.34989-1-r.obkircher@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1762170051404 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.000 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-docs] fix #6728: remove mention of oldstable to clarify support/EOL policy X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" Someone found the original phrasing confusing, because a Debian version stays stable and oldstable for roughly 4 years and Promox VE is supported for about 3 years. The bug report [0] also mentions a forum post [1] that should be updated as well. [0]: https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=6728 [1]: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/proxmox-ve-support-lifecycle.35755/ Signed-off-by: Robert Obkircher --- pve-faq.adoc | 5 +++-- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/pve-faq.adoc b/pve-faq.adoc index 1f6c4ae..b8cefd9 100644 --- a/pve-faq.adoc +++ b/pve-faq.adoc @@ -81,8 +81,9 @@ to run. How long will my {pve} version be supported?:: {pve} versions are supported at least as long as the corresponding -Debian Version is -https://wiki.debian.org/DebianOldStable[oldstable]. {pve} uses a +Debian version, i.e. approximately 3 years after its initial release, +see https://www.debian.org/security/faq#lifespan[Debian lifespan]. +{pve} uses a rolling release model and using the latest stable version is always recommended. + -- 2.47.3 _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel