Re: Why back-porting patches to stable instead of releasing a new package.

[Mattia Dongili <dongili@supereva.it>]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 04:37:58PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 04:24:18PM +0200, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> > 
> > 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
> 
> Pleease explain your SpamAssassin example:
> There were significant changes in SpamAssassin between 2.20 and 2.55.
> How moch do you think would be left for your "base package"?
 
 actually I've never installed SA... :) I was just supposing that such a
 package is based on a core executable and a set of datafiles containing
 rules to be applied to incoming messages. This way it could be easy to
 split it as I suggested.
 Obviously there would be a need for a heavy backport work on the
 datafiles.

 Sorry if this suggestion does not apply to real-world packages :P

-- 
mattia
:wq!