Re: about volatile.d.o/n
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 08:47:27AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
>
> > > Would the kernel and X be candidates for volatile?
> >
> > I dont see any reason why not, if they can be marked as NotAutomatic.
> >
>
> Due to versioned dependencies, that could be impractical for X, which has
> a long list of reverse depends.
Sorry, with X i thought of "package X" instead of xserver-*. I meant for the
kernel, which in some cases it could be tagged non automatic for updates, so
that only the package is installed if the users wishes so. Making 2.6 kernels
available for woody could have been an scenario where this approach could have
work, except for the dependencies that the new kernel requires, but still is a
good example of a possibility.
J
--
Jesus Climent info:www.pumuki.org
Unix SysAdm|Linux User #66350|Debian Developer|2.4.27|Helsinki Finland
GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69
First came darkness, then came the strangers.
--Dr. Schreber (Dark City)
Reply to: