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

Re: about volatile.d.o/n

Scripsit Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>

> I could however see the possiblity to add a new package "mozilla1.7",
> that users can optionally install. However, I also won't like it.

Me neither. For example, if I was already using somebody else's
backport of mozilla1.7, I wouldn't like it if volatile.d.o hijacked
that package and attempted to update it with maintainer scripts that
know nothing about the backport I'm using.

All additions of new packages carry such a risk, and I don't think
that volatile should take that risk unless demonstrably necessary
for reaching the main goal of volatile. Which is not duplicating
something that existing backports repositories do well.

(For the same reason, any updates that add any _new_ /usr/lib/*.so
files should be treated with extreme caution. Their name may clash
with something I have in /usr/local/lib, and break things. On the
other hand /usr/lib/packagename/*.so is fair game).

Henning Makholm                               "... popping pussies into pies
                                                      Wouldn't do in my shop
                            just the thought of it's enough to make you sick
                           and I'm telling you them pussy cats is quick ..."

Reply to: