Re: about volatile.d.o/n
Henning Makholm [u] wrote on 11/10/2004 19:48:
>> 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.
Either you are using a backport, which implies that the version you are
using is actually somewhere in the debian archive (probably testing or
unstable) or you are using an unofficial package in which case Debian
can't help you.
It is impossible to tell which unofficial packages are available.
www.apt-get.org does quite a good job at listing most unofficial
repositories, but I don't think that volatile.d.o should actually check
each of them for possible clashes with software entering v.d.o.
If you install something unofficial on your system and it breaks because
of some conflicting version/package in the official archive (be it main,
non-us, security or the proposed volatile), this is _your_ problem or
that of the provider of that unofficial package, not Debian's.
If you are using a backport from backports.org, there won't be a
problem, but if there was one, it would still not be up to Debian, but
to the backporter.
regards,
Sven
PS: Sorry, didn't mean to send this reply in private first.
Reply to: