Re: timezone data packaged separately and in volatile?

[Anand Kumria <wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au>]

On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:57:54AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Anand Kumria (wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au) [060207 09:52]:
> > 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.
> 
> You mean, we better don't do anything than to accept packages into a
> repository that is actually in apt.sources on a lot of machines, even on
> the debian.org-machines?

I don't understand your English, perhaps you could rephrase or clarify?

> > 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 mean, like accepting a new locale package into volatile? Ah, that's
> you who don't like it.

Again, those statements don't make any sense to me.  Either by
themselves or in the context my what you've quoted. Could you rephrase
or clarify.

Thanks,
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 --"