Re: Debian 3.0r1
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 11:50:18AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> [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 Known absolutely outdated software doesn't belong into stable.
I agree completely with you here. If Selinux was broken *before*
the release, it should be marked as such (and bugs filed) so that the
release manager did not include in there.
That's what the package maintainer of Selinux should have done on
the first place: keep it on unstable.
> To be specific:
> 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 are outdated very, very fast.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).
I don't agree with you here. A sysadmin could have the scanning
engine in stable and update *just* the database from unstable on a weekly
basis. That would be quite feasible.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com