Re: Proposed change to debian release system
Eric Dorland <eric@debian.org> writes:
>> * spamassassin
>> * snort
>>
>> could be considered perishable because their effectiveness is reduced over
>> time. Such classed packages should be allowed to be updated in stable, I
>> feel. Of course, it could be argued that any package is perishable, and thus
>> this whole thing becomes a moot point...
>
> We always have to be careful with things like that, since stable is
> *stable*... it should not really change, except to address critical
> issues. Not that I disagree with your proposal. I think that some
> value in updating these packages, and for packages such as
> spamassassin and snort the case could be made that updating them would
> be security updates, particularly in the case of snort.
>
> Also those two packages really contain rule sets that could be
> packaged separately and updated, while leaving the core code
> unchanged. That would probably be the least surprising thing, and the
> least likely to cause bugs, but would still be a lot of work and
> testing.
>
Perhaps the rule-sets could be handled outside of the debian package
system, like clamav does (clamav runs a daemon that fetches new
rulesets as they become availle on the Net).
Andy
--
Andreas Rottmann | Rotty@ICQ | 118634484@ICQ | a.rottmann@gmx.at
http://yi.org/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219 F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62
Packages should build-depend on what they should build-depend.
Reply to: