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

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

> 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: