Re: about volatile.d.o/n
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 05:51:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> we had some discussion about volatile, and I'm more and more considering to
> pick this task up. 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;
Hi Andres,
I've tried to follow the debate so far, but I'm not as knowledgable as a
DD, but I have some thoughts.
Packages like virus checkers seem to be
composed of 2 parts: the app program and the data where the data in
this case are virus sigs and the app is say clamav. And the 'volitile'
part is the virus sigs whereas the app (once it hits stable) shouldnt
change unless it warrents a 'security' update. So, volitile should be
for the data/virus sigs that need updating when new bugs hit the 'net.
Does this correspond with what others think?
also if the data conformed to the expected format for the version in
stable, would it have to go throught the same QA process
(expr-unstable-testing-stable)?
- -kev
- --
(__)
(oo)
/------\/
/ | ||
* /\---/\
~~ ~~
...."Have you mooed today?"...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBZ4y3AWAAuqdWA9cRArSSAJ9RJRIqRuR/TObzU8fAds6E5xR6FACeMyS4
lkNMzUJn7sr6bEdFbZ9hjqc=
=zYVC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: