Re: about volatile.d.o/n
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 02:02:47PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * paddy (email@example.com) [041011 12:55]:
> > On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 05:51:48PM +0200, 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 would like 'must' keep them functional: IOW, voltaile is prepared to
> > drop packages from volatile that are, for whatever reason, unable to keep
> > up with the purpose. It would be sad if volatile ended up containing
> > useless packages!
> Of course we need to reserve the right to drop packages - but, doing
> that would still be bad. Adding a package to volatile means for me that
> we are very confident that we can support it till the current debian
> major release is archived. If we can't do that, we shouldn't have added
> it in the first place.
Hmm, deja vu ;)
What happens to packages that become orphaned?
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall