Re: about volatile.d.o/n
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 11:33:49AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze (joey@infodrom.org) [041017 11:20]:
> > 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.
>
> As soon as it requires new versions of some libraries, this is a no-go.
> People who want it may go to backports.org or so. Perhaps we may add an
> news item on volatiles page about that then.
>
> The main word is "above all, do no harm". The default action is to not
> add something.
>
Indeed, I think that major interests in volatile are about beta-quality software
released in stable. A major upgrade would allow to use a 'sane' version
which in turn should not require many library changes at all. I'm thinking
to the pre-1.0 version of mozilla in woody: upgrading to a sane 1.0
version in stable by volatile could be considered, solving many
functional problems and being a sane (and safe) possibility.
Other major upgrades (e.g. mozilla-current) are backports.org concerns.
We have currently a few software of large use in those conditions, e.g.
firefox/thunderbird (but note that those programs are really in better
conditions in respect with the old woody mozilla)
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Reply to: