On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 11:43:55PM +0900, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Julien Cristau <email@example.com> writes:On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 22:34:39 +0900, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:Sounds like one of those packages that can't keep working for the lifetime of a stable release. Should we ship this in stable at all? (Same question for youtube-dl btw.)clive needs a small patch to handle changed URLs on vimeo.com.I prepared an upload based on the version currently in unstable (which is already unblocked).libquvi and cclive (which uses the former) should also have the same problem.The patches to cope with changed URLs are usually quite small and should be safe to include in a stable update. Maybe we could use volatile.d.o to make updates available faster. I have never used it before myself, but `debian-volatile is not "just another place" for backports, but should only contain changes to stable programs that are necessary to keep them functional.' reads like the program should be in stable if updates should be provided via volatile. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I believe the separation of quvi and cclive makes only quvi relevant for volatile.
- Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Description: Digital signature