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

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 debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: