Re: Firefox and Sarge
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 05:48:55PM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:52:02AM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > Let me add that supporting for a couple of years a 0.8 (or 1.6 for mozilla) version,
> > when much more complete versions 1.x (2.x) will be available in a few months is indeed
> > a waste of time: users will upgrade to the latest anyway (by backports or
> > using a vanilla binary, which is not a bad option at all in many cases for those programs).
> > IMHO we should simply remove such kind of programs at the first point release and
> > invite users to do the same and move to a newer version.
>
> IMHO, an official backport would be the best solution. For stuff like
> mozilla with other packages graviting around, using vanilla binary might
> break things.
It is reasonable (even if suboptimal) when it is installed in /opt. Anyway final
decision is in the hands of RMs and the maintainer(s). We should probably move
the discussion in d-release. BTW maintaining a proper unofficial sarge policy compliant
package will become a pain in the ass when etch will start to diverge significantly.
My own suggestion is starting a working group to maintain a proposed-updates (which never
would go into point release, due to current policy for them) archive
for those kind of frequently-changing high-demand packages.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Reply to: