Re: about volatile.d.o/n

[Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>]

Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Henning Makholm (henning@makholm.net) [041011 18:30]:
> > The goal should be that I, as a user, can add volatile to my
> > sources.list and periodically do an apt-get upgrade - without risking
> > to suddenly have my web browser updated to a new major release where
> > it starts behaving differently, all my users' preferences get out of
> > kilter, etc.
> 
> I think this is one of the most important statements - and I think it
> describes our policy quite well.
> 
> 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.

Please be very careful with packages like these.  It may require a
new version of libfoo1 and libbar2g and libbaz0g etc. which people
may accidently install, which in turn can hurt them in other areas
and contribute "strange" bug reports.

If you plan something like this, please at least use the componentised
layout of backports.org and don't pollute the main volatile archive
with this.  (Still, I don't believe, such a packages incl. dependencies
should go into volatile.debian.net.)

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
Those who don't understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.