Re: RFD: Draft for a volatile.d.o policy
Sven Mueller writes:
> Say a new open source network security scanner enters the world, and it
> works well when compiled against Debian stable, we might want to add it
> to v.d.o even though it wasn't available when the last stable
> distribution was released. Or a new version of clamav is released, which
> sadly breaks compatibility, so we rename it to clamav2 and it can still
> be released through v.d.o, similarly to exim4 entering debian alongside
> exim a while ago.
Those things belong in the non-existent backports.debian.org, not in
volatile.debian.org.
> This also might include working on a sort of security team for v.d.o (I
> think both jobs should actually be combined in v.d.o).
v.d.o. should be supported by the Debian security team. I don't think it
is worth doing if it can't be. One way to help make sure Debian security
can support it is to keep it as small and simple as possible.
--
John Hasler
Reply to: