Re: volatile data in packages
* Russell Coker (russell@coker.com.au) wrote:
> Several times there have been suggestions for exclusions to the policy
> regarding new packages in stable for certain types of data. One example is
> virus definitions for scanners. Another example that comes to mind is the
> configuration files for postgrey (which contain data about the behaviour that
> has been discovered in mail servers on the Internet - an upgrade or policy
> change to a server could require changes to the configuration files).
I think that's a great idea, but almost certainly more useful for
postgrey than a virus scanners. The reality of current virus
propagation is that you need to update your virus definitions every
day. I doubt these virus definition packages would be updated that
often.
> Maybe it would be a good idea to have a special category of package for such
> data. Such packages would have only data files (no scripts or binaries) and
> only the very simplest pre/postinst scripts (such as restarting the daemon in
> question).
>
> Of course such package splits would be convenient even if we don't have any
> special treatment (it would make it easier for back-ports repositories, and
> reduce the amount of data that changes on stable systems). But I think that
> it would be good if such config files could be changed in stable.
--
Eric Dorland <eric.dorland@mail.mcgill.ca>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+
G e h! r- y+
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Reply to: