Re: Updating scanners and filters in Debian stable (3.1)
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 09:35:38PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> [ do NOT reply to my mail, i am subscribed to the list ]
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 12:11:32PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > It seems to me that "impossible" is being used in a strange sense
> > here.
> Well, backporting the bayes which was introduced in 2.5x does not sound like
> something you want to do. I rather put 2.5x which is supported by upstream,
> not deprecated and has a bigger user-base and developer eyes on the code than
> 2.20. With all the bugs along.
> But again, that might be just me.
Which raises the obvious question ...
How would one decide which features to backport, and which not?
(for me it would always be the things I want, but then thats just me :)
In any case the scheme I outline elsewhere might take the pressure off
of a point that seems destined to be overloaded with potentially
conflicting requirements, by providing exactly what you ask for, as
simply and quickly as possible.
What do you think ?
> Jesus Climent info:www.pumuki.org
> Unix SysAdm|Linux User #66350|Debian Developer|2.4.27|Helsinki Finland
> GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69
> Good night and sweet dreams... which we'll analyze in the morning.
> --Dr Alex Brulov (Spellbound)
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org