Re: about volatile.d.o/n

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>]

paddy <paddy@panici.net> writes:

> 'stable even for users who are "misusing" the system.' sounds like it
> could turn out to be a tall order, if it is intended to have wider
> application.

It is a tall order.  It is also one that Debian has done fairly well,
by having very strict policies about stable.

> I think there need to be good reasons to depart from stable, and
> clearly, in some areas at least, there are.  This may or may not
> be one of those areas, I don't see into it that deeply.

I want to hear the *exact* reasons.  So far, it has been things like:

"Virus scanners must be updated in order to remain useful."
"And so, we must be able to change locale information, add new command
 line args, or fix spelling errors in output sometimes."

The first may be true.  The second does not follow.

I do not object to saying that some things must be updated to remain
useful, and exempting them from the normal stable procedures.  But we
should not exempt the whole *package*, but specific *changes to the
package*.  Only those changes which "must happen for the package to
remain useful" should be permitted.  Other ones should not.

Thomas