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

Re: about volatile.d.o/n



This one time, at band camp, paddy said:
> Andi,
> 
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 05:51:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > I think some issues are quite obvious:
> > 
> > - packages should only go in in cooperation with the maintainers;
> > 
> > - volatile is not "just another place" for backports, but should only
> >   contain changes to stable programs that are necessary to keep them
> >   functional;
> > 
> > - Good candidates are clamav (including spin-offs), spamassassin,
> >   chkrootkit;
> > 
> > - It should allow any administrator to "just use" volatile, as they "just
> >   use" security.d.o, and they should be confident that nothing is broken by
> >   that;
> > 
> > - for bugs, the normal debian bug tracking system should be used.
> 
> It suddenly strikes me that the link between, say, clamav and spamassassin
> is
> 	co-evolving enemies
> 
> I think an explicit mention of the above as an ecological viewpoint is worthwhile
> if only in this mail. (but only because I'm the only one to whom it wasn't
> previously patently obvious :)

This is precisely why I am interested in such a repository.  the modern
internet is an arms race, and relying on tools several years out of date
is a poor solution.  Thanks to Andi for your work - I will be in touch
about how to work with you on this.
-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
|   ,''`.					     Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :					 sgran@debian.org |
|  `. `'			Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-					    http://www.debian.org |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment: pgpV_WkHwNEWE.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: