Re: RFD: Draft for a volatile.d.o policy
John,
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 06:48:00PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> 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.
I disagree.
define 'breaks compatibilty'.
As long as it _is_ still the same package, (For an example of the converse,
I direct you to apt-proxy) then the change in name is just
an artifact of the upstream versioning and the packaging system. Basing
policy on an implementation detail that should be used for
technical reasons, simply for lack of doing the work to arrive at a
proper description, would be a mistake. (not that I'm accusing you of
doing that, clearly).
Regards,
Paddy
--
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
Reply to: