Re: Care of your packages Was: Accepted dh-ocaml 0.4.1~bpo50+1 (source all)

[Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net>]

On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:56:41 +0100
Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@deb.at> wrote:

> * Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> [2010-02-01 16:45:25 CET]:
> > On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:53:12 +0100
> > Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@deb.at> wrote:
[...]
> 
> > >  as-needed appears when there indeed are security issues and bug
> > > fixes around. What one should *not* do though is to stay quite in
> > > case of such issues and just pretend that it isn't there. If one
> > > has troubles with updating a backport for such issues please
> > > raise your voice so you can get helped. There's nothing worse
> > > than sitting around and hoping noone will notice the issues.
> > 
> > What issues, exactly?  The issue of, "gee, the current version of
> > $foo in lenny-backports satisfies my needs perfectly, what's the
> > point of updating to the version in squeeze?" (which may cause
> > random other packages to be uninstallable, etc).
> 
>  Issues like security bugs or many other bug fixes that people would
> like to have in there. You know, actually that's often a big part of
> the reason people do release updates to their software. If it may
> cause random other packages to be uninstallable then that's an issue
> that should be taken in consideration. Yet this happened very rarely,
> to be honest. By milestones far less than that there are bug fixes
> included in the updated packages that nag at least some few people
> badly, even if they aren't you yourself.
> 


This conversation isn't about security fixes or bug fixes.  It's about
new major versions of packages.  New major versions of packages
often include more bugs than they fix.