Re: RFD: Draft for a volatile.d.o policy
Sven Mueller writes:
> Say a new open source network security scanner enters the world...
> Those things belong in the non-existent backports.debian.org, not in
> define 'breaks compatibilty'.
> As long as it _is_ still the same package...
If a package changes enough to require a new name it is a new package.
> 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.
I don't understand what you mean by this. Descriptions have nothing to do