Re: Why back-porting patches to stable instead of releasing a new package.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 08:41:50AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 03:05:23PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Do not even start thinking about something like this.
>
> To late: if i wrote it, i thought it :)
>
> > If you start asking you will likely find more than thousand packages
> > where someone will have a good reason for an update of the package in
> > Debian 3.0. If only every 10th of these updates introduces a new bug
> > (IMHO a conservative estimation) these packages will bring 100 new bugs
> > into _a released stable_.
>
> I understand that this might happen, and that whould probably end up in a mess,
> but one point that come out from this small thread is that there are some
> case in which a backport of a package to stable would be more than a kindness
> from the Debian developer. This kind issue should be addressed in some way.
>
> Just to be sure, i was/am not referring to package like... zope. I mean: i would
> not release 2.6.1 for stable even if it add really a lot of wanted/nice features.
> I'm speacking about cases like phpgroupware which provides bugfix relase of the
> same version, or sensible packages like snort or spamassassin, which hevily
> depends on up-to-date data/plugins/whatever.
what about splitting those packages in such a way that there's
1. a base package and
2. a plugin/data/whatever package
2 must be explicitly approved to be an updatable stable package. This
must obviously only apply to packages such as spamassassin.
this way 2 can be updated from time to time providing more recent
plugin/data/whatever
my 2 cents
--
mattia
:wq!
Reply to: