[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian 3.0r1

[don't cc me, please]

On Sat, 2002-07-27 at 04:07, Brian May wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 11:02:18AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> > Then the software shouldn't have been released with woody at all, imho.
> So if you can predict that a future version of the software will make
> the current version obsolete you shouldn't release the package in stable?

This is bs.

Known fundamentally *broken* software doesn't belong into stable.
Known absolutely outdated software doesn't belong into stable.
Software that only works if major parts of the system are modified is
just hard to fit into a distribution properly.

To be specific: 

The discussion here has given me the impression that selinux was
severely broken to the point of being unusable without *heavy* manual
tweaking. Such things don't belong into stable - people using it are
probably comfortable enough rolling it on their own.

Virus scanners etc. are outdated very, very fast. Integrating such
softwre into stable is not useful (I find the meaning of stable == no
upgrades except security and major breakage is useful).

(At least) two ways to get around this:
 - don't package at all. Users shall have to look for themselves
 - package an installer. This installer could possibly install an
additional line into sources.list to a antivirus-software-repository
(which will only carry this one program and it's signatures). So stable
is stable, but necessary software upgrades can happen. The admin even
knows exactly what will be upgraded and does not have unpleasant
surprises because suddenly somebody decided that ... should be upgraded.

(As I said in my previous mail: everything imho, of course).

-- vbi

secure email with gpg                         http://fortytwo.ch/gpg

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: