Re: Review of the gtk-gnutella patch
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday, January 14 at 07:45 PM, quoth Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw):
> Yes... but there is a "small tiny line" that splits what packages
>are suitable for inclusion in volatile (and sloppy) and the packages that
>we recommend a backport instead of volatile.
>
> In fact it still a litle bit fuzzy for me, but AFAICT, and please,
>somebody correct if I'm wrong here, you should consider something like
>this (and it is my personal point of view, MHO):
>
> * Sarge Security Updates and Point realeases
> - Security fixes
> - Special cases for some packages (very rare cases)
>
> * Volatile
> - Packages that relays on very often updates but do not have a
> big change in its structure (clamav as the best reference)
>
> * Volatile Sloppy
> - Packages that get big chagens and also relays on very often
> updates. SpamAssassin is one good example of a package that
> jumps from volatile to sloppy.
>
> * Backport
> - New releases braking of the actual configuration
My understanding was that volatile was like security, but focused on
packages that were broken in ways that did not affect security. For
example, clamav relies on the format of the virus-scanning signature
data it gets from. When that changes, the old clamav becomes useless,
even if it isn't a security hazard, thus, it needs to be updated.
However, the goal of volatile is that it's something that admins can
simply apply and not worry about, like security: it won't break a stable
install.
~Kyle
- --
If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
would it?
-- Albert Einstein, 1941
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Thank you for using encryption!
iD8DBQFDye5rBkIOoMqOI14RAva7AKCj/UTCWcphi5YsELfuO1dzGtDcjgCffktt
x2BCFcgWCbi6WI0y54CdzjI=
=Qr19
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: