Re: about volatile.d.o/n

[paddy <paddy@panici.net>]

Andi,

On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 05:51:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> I think some issues are quite obvious:
> 
> - packages should only go in in cooperation with the maintainers;
> 
> - volatile is not "just another place" for backports, but should only
>   contain changes to stable programs that are necessary to keep them
>   functional;
> 
> - Good candidates are clamav (including spin-offs), spamassassin,
>   chkrootkit;
> 
> - It should allow any administrator to "just use" volatile, as they "just
>   use" security.d.o, and they should be confident that nothing is broken by
>   that;
> 
> - for bugs, the normal debian bug tracking system should be used.

It suddenly strikes me that the link between, say, clamav and spamassassin
is
	co-evolving enemies

I think an explicit mention of the above as an ecological viewpoint is worthwhile
if only in this mail. (but only because I'm the only one to whom it wasn't
previously patently obvious :)

  The balance of the risk of introducing bugs into such software has to be
  seen in the context of a potentially large monoculture.

I would like to think that such a risk could be mitigated sufficiently to 
enable the 'as-fast-as-possible' emphasis I have advocated, but I see that
good intentions alone cannot achieve that : substantial quantities of 
'hard work' may eventually get me there.

Incidentally, Great work !

Regards,


Paddy

--
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall