This one time, at band camp, Jason Self said: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-volatile/2006/06/msg00003.html > > Sorry; I should have clarified: I wasn't wondering if version 3.1 of > SpamAssassin could be integrated into volatile as it's already in > sloppy and I am quite happy to pull it from there. What I was > wondering is when it'll progress beyond 3.1. > > IMHO, if volatile and/or sloppy start stagnating at a particular > version, it's no better than Debian stable. (Wasn't volatile created > as a way around the Debian policy surrounding stable to keep up with > such packages anyway? Isn't that it's purpose?) > > "Some packages aim at fast moving targets like spam filtering and > virus scanning, and even via using updated virus patterns, this > doesn't really work for the full time of a stable release." Yes, SA 3.1 is in unstable, we should really think about including it in volatile (at least IMHO). Aba, zobel - any thoughts? -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature