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

Re: Proposal: Bringing volatile in shape for sarge

Quoting Adrian von Bidder <avbidder@fortytwo.ch>:

On Tuesday 24 May 2005 10.31, Andreas Barth wrote:
volatile is also mentioned in the release notes.

With volatile being mentioned in the release notes (and it being a
debian.net service, thus not-entirely-official), a clarifying note should
imho be added to explain what the difference is between the three big
places to get debian packages, namely volatile, backports.org and
apt-get.org (I hope d-release is the right list for this)

volatile is already covered, I propose adding a section 6.5

Getting additional software

Although the Debian GNU/Linux software archive is very big, it may happen
that you want to install software not available from debian.org.  Debian
packages are available from many places, the two most important addresses
I would add:

"... you want to install software not available from debian.org or newer
versions of software than those that are currently available in the Sarge

- backports.org
    Debian's update policy is very conservative: basically, no new software
versions at all are allowed into Debian sarge once it is released, the
point updates (3.1r1 etc.) primarily integrate previously released security
updates.  backports.org releases new software versions packaged to run on
Debian sarge.  [#include not about security support for backports.org - I
have no idea myself.]
- apt-get.org
    apt-get.org is not a package repository itself, but many package
repositories are listed in the searchable index of this site.
Consequently, trustworthiness, quality and offered level of
maintenance/support vary wildly depending on the source of the packages.

Change to:

"... maintenance/support vary widely depending ..."

Please see also section 2.1.1 about 'volatile' as a source of updated
packages for software like virus scanners etc. which depend on information
that easily becomes outdated.

-- vbi


Roberto C. Sanchez

Reply to: