[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: timezone data packaged separately and in volatile?

On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 07:52:15PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Anand Kumria (wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au) [060207 04:34]:
> > > I also think volatile is precisely the wrong place to put this kind of 
> > > data -- it isn't part of the default apt.sources for one thing; and it 
> > > places an extra burden on the maintainer(s) (who know have to track
> > > three different upgrade paths, etc.).
> > 
> > Only because you have a prejudice against volatile doesn't mean its the
> > wrong place. Volatile is rather the exactly right place for this kind of
> > update.
> It is precisely the wrong place because volatile isn't in
> apt.sources by default. If it were, it'd be a different story.
> As it is, volatile is a great solution in search of a problem.  It is 
> unfortunate that you, and others, seem to latch onto things like as a 
> reason to make volatile useful.

You feel yourself at war with volatile because the volatile team
didn't accept a fully new upstream version of gtk-gnutella - which was
never the idea behind volatile. Volatile is not just one more place
for backports.


Marc Haber         | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |  lose things."    Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Nordisch by Nature |  How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835

Reply to: