On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Anand Kumria (firstname.lastname@example.org) [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. The underlying technical issue that volatile is working around is that the stable release manager isn't interested in ensuring that a stable release is both functional and secure (btw: has anyone asked him to confirm this?; I'm just working on the 'general assumptions' here). These goals are not inherently opposed to each other. I'd rather work through the existing stable release process first, then resort to a work-around. Anand -- `When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --"
Description: Digital signature