Re: about volatile.d.o/n
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 11:33:49AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze (email@example.com) [041017 11:20]:
> > Andreas Barth wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
Sometimes I could almost believe there is a libfoo :)
> 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.
I don't understand this. What is the harm (in new versions of libraries)?
> The main word is "above all, do no harm". The default action is to not
> add something.