Re: Care of your packages Was: Accepted dh-ocaml 0.4.1~bpo50+1 (source all)
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:56:41 +0100
Gerfried Fuchs <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> * Andres Salomon <email@example.com> [2010-02-01 16:45:25 CET]:
> > On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:53:12 +0100
> > Gerfried Fuchs <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.