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

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

* Jesus Climent (jesus.climent@hispalinux.es) [030723 18:50]:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 04:45:54PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > That applies to data-files (or very similar things) like spamassasin.
> > There should be in the README.Debian given a location for the backport
> > by the maintainer.

> Spamassassin needs more than data files, since the rules relay on funtions
> only available in the new spamassassin perl modules, so a backport is a hell
> lot of a backport, if even can be called like that since in most cases is a
> complete rewrite.

I spoke of "functional data-files", that means: packages where the
package has not (only) code, but much of the value is data. At
spamassasin this _is_ the case with the spam-detecting-code. _If_ the
maintainer thinks he should giv woody-users regulary a new version of
this package, than he should be able to do this (e.g. via a line in
the README-file). This doesn't break anything, and users using this
package (should) know that they're leaving the guarded place of debian

But I want to emphasize that getting nearer a new stable release would
be much better than discussion how to allow users to use updated
applications in stable.

   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

Reply to: