Re: about volatile.d.o/n
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 03:51:29PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Friday 08 October 2004 11:51 am, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > - volatile is not "just another place" for backports, but should only
> > contain changes to stable programs that are necessary to keep them
> > functional;
>
> I generally have to resort to backports or unstable when installing Debian
> on recent hardware, because we don't update hardware drivers in stable.
> Would the kernel and X be candidates for volatile?
>
Uhm, if I'm remembering right at potato time we had kernel upgrades, at
least 2.2.17 -> 2.2.19. Unfortunately new kernels imply new big security
concerns in many cases. Anyway, kernel and X are not typical targets
for volatile: we are not proposing new stable releases, but only
very localized changes for a few programs which are inerently
subject to fast obsolescence (i.e. short-life applications).
For those kind of things backports.org is the right answer.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Reply to: