Re: Updating scanners and filters in Debian stable (3.1)
On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 08:38:39PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Francesco Paolo Lovergine (email@example.com) [041003 12:45]:
> > Not always. In the past many backports have been built including perfectly
> > avoidable new dependencies. The volatile archive should have policy and
> > deb tools frozen. So no new debconf, no new ucf and so on.
> Agreed for run-time dependencies, but not for build dependencies. I
> think that e.g. adding dpatch is not really hurting anything, and makes
> it easier to manage patches.
That's a change in packaging style. Security updates do not do that,
and I cannot see a reason to change that in volatile. Avoid unneeded
changes should be the mandatory rule.
> > In many
> > cases packaging scripts should remain the same of stable ones.
> > The purpose is clear: volatile should contain only unavoidable major
> > updates for a few known monster-programs (e.g. mozilla family)
> > or program classes (anti-virus, anti-spam, security tools),
> > not random backports.
Francesco P. Lovergine