Re: Updating scanners and filters in Debian stable (3.1)
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 02:22:18PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> If you want something which is simply unrestricted, you have that
> now, no need for any changes to anything.
I assume you mean use unstable? see below.
> Right, but why not just use unstable?
I asked this question earlier, perhaps you can clarify for me.
sid is built against sid, right ? So one could aim to build
packages that would have a smaller impact when pinned onto a
'stable' box? Tell me why I'm wrong and I at least will simply
cheer, thank you and go away. (not to mention passing on the good news).
> Actually, the updated package *is* unstable, because it is, in fact, a
> change.
Agreed.
> So I'm saying: limit the instability.
Yes, but ...
> That is, a strategy of "we want to always put the latest upstream in"
> is simply a failure from my standpoint.
I could share that point of view if it were "we only ever ...".
Doing one thing does not preclude doing another, especially not when
there is synergy between them.
Nor do I see the necesity for the lack of clear distinctions and
definitions.
> If you are willing to do lots
> of hard work, then that would be a wonderful thing.
There is real work involved in what is proposed or it is valueless
as you seem to suggest. Which is it? And could you explain.
> Otherwise, we
> lose nothing by telling people to use the existing non-Debian
> repositories.
>
> Thomas
>
But if there nothing of value there, why would we direct them there?
So they can work it out for themselves ?
Regards,
Paddy
Reply to: