Re: possible mass bug filing: spamassassin 3
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 16:33:37 +0200, martin f krafft <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> also sprach Colin Watson <email@example.com> [2004.10.06.1616
>> This is backwards. The conflicts must be added in spamassassin in
>> order that we don't forget to remove said other packages from sarge
>> if necessary.
> That prevents SA from entering Sarge.
Which is a good thing, neh? A brand new version ought to kick
around in Sid until the rough edges are knocked off.
> I say: remove all the others from Sarge unless or until they comply
> with SA 3.
No, this is backwards, Currently, in Sarge, we have a bunch of
packages working together -- using SA2 interfaces. So people have
SA, and all the other things that make use of the API.
Under your scheme, Sarge would be bereft of all the packages
that build on SA that have not changed, at the cost of something that
has shown all evidence of being flakey and not ready for prime time
"When marriage is outlawed, only outlaws will have inlaws." Jef
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C