Re: about volatile.d.o/n
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 02:28:10AM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 03:51:29PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> I dont see any reason why not, if they can be marked as NotAutomatic.
>
Due to versioned dependencies, that could be impractical for X, which has
a long list of reverse depends. I'd like to see in volatile just
as much as possible 'autoconsistent' pieces of software (to minimize
possibility of subtle breakage). Other things have already their home
in backports.org, at admin's risk. If you check d-kernel you we'll
also see that any new release of kernel would potentially cause
problems to a good deal of users. It's not a thing we could seriously
think to support IMHO.
Also, little is nice: thinking of having a looong list of (complicated
and interdependet) volatile packages would imply looong release cycles.
That's exactly the opposite we would gain with v.d.o|n.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Reply to: