Re: Debian 3.0r1
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?
s/obsolete/insecure and deprecated/
Then yes. In such a case the package is not stable and thus not suited
for a stable Debian release which is to last for quite a while.
> What about software that *needs* to be constantly updated. This isn't
> always because it is experimental software either (eg, virus scanners).
> Are you saying that software can't go into stable, ever?
They should not go into stable if they *need* to be updated regularily.
If they don't need to, no problem. For virus scanners data, it would
be a good idea to add an auto-update facility the user can choose to
use to update the data files instead of using the static stable packages.
The MS-DOS filesystem is nice for removable media. -- H. Peter Anvin
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com