Re: Why back-porting patches to stable instead of releasing a new package.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 01:19:25PM +0200, Sander Smeenk wrote:
> The same happened with one of my packages: snort. There was a /really/
> old release in stable, because new uploads didn't make it in time. There
> were a couple of reasons why it would be good to have a new upstream
> version of the snort package installed in stable. But the Debian Policy
> forbids it.
This is another example, that i like: who would ever use an old IDS?
I think that in this case a system administrator would really like to see a
new package for his stable box even if it introduce new
features, functionalities or uses a different behaviour.
> I think Q&A (or others) should take such a package and test it
> thorougly, and then maybe decide to put it in stable. Unfortunately such
> a thing takes a lot of time and work. So really, putting your own
> backported packages on p.d.o seems like the best option.
I don't know if QA should test it before releasing to stable (assuming that a
new version might be the solution ), but i would use this kind of approach.
I don't like putting back-ported packages on p.d.o (i should place more than 8
MB of binary packages), because if i do a package back-port and people start
using my archive instead of the official one, to me it means the there is
something wrong in the procedure to handle uploads to stable or something like
 i mean that i'd like to see more disucssion on this issue to undestand if
i'm wrong or what else.
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well
aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][A-Za-z\-]*[iy]'\?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have
Luca, a wannabe ``Good guy''. | something in common: they
local LANG="it_IT@euro" | don't depend on the language.