[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Updating scanners and filters in Debian stable (3.1)


On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 02:58:05PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> paddy <paddy@panici.net> writes:
> > 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.
> No, you can simply use private repositories, or backports, or whatever
> else.  

Yeah, sorry. I realised this after I'd hit send.

> There need be no Debian-branding of it in any way.  

IANADD.  As I said earlier, I'll doing the work either way.  
If I thought I was alone, I wouldn't bother anyone with it.

> What Debian
> gives people is some kind of assurance about the stability and care
> that goes in to it, and so far, what I have heard is that you want to
> be entirely unrestricted.

I'd like to think that what Debian gives people is beyond our knowledge.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the process would be automated
or otherwise made devoid of the considerable care and attention that
Debian maintainers clearly lavish on their packages.  Indeed, given the
debate, one would hope that the subset in question would be better than

I'm suggesting that the same measures and indicators of stability be used 
- at least that is my intended meaning.

That's not to say I don't attach some meaning to what you say.

I say 'I see a different kind of good'.
You say 'entirely unrestricted'.

I don't see what I mean by 'entirely unrestricted' here.
So I look around for something that could be 'entirely unrestricted'.

And so I guess: 
  'Not bad.  What guarantee can I give that it won't be bad?'  
I refer you back to 'same measures and indicators'.



Reply to: