This one time, at band camp, Matthew Palmer said: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 10:13:42PM -0400, Noah Meyerhans wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 02:10:17PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > > Maybe we should just relax the stable update policy for such packages, > > > and others which would benefit from regular updates (e.g. drivers). > > > > People have suggested additional sections in the archive for packages > > like this... So how 'bout this idea: A new section, possibly entitled > > "volatile". Packages in this section declare that they may change, but > > I would suggest making it a new release, alongside stable, which can store > packages expected to change regularly but always built against stable (and > possibly other "volatile" packages. Having no idea how the backend archive > actually works, I don't know whether this is practical (especially once you > consider the whole autobuilder mess) but it's certainly a possibility, and > would be a natural compliment to the existing suites. Making a minor point release seems to me to be too fragile - if for instance, there is a known new network attack in the wild, and an IDS maintainer would really like to get the update uploaded, they would have to wait for the next point release to actually get it distributed. I think the idea of something more like stable-proposed-updates or security, where packages change only as they need to, is the best way to go here. Building against stable, of course, is a must here. I don't think the autobuilder's shouldbe too much of a problem - it's already done for security, so in theory it's workable. Not being brave enough to really try my hand at the autobuilder code, I can't comment for sure, however. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgpE_b0t40wPL.pgp
Description: PGP signature