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

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
> 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

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+ 

Reply to: