Re: SpamAssassin
On 06.06.06 17:28, Stephen Gran wrote:
> 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?
no, according to last rule on http://volatile.debian.net/:
# the upgrade path from volatile to the next stable release needs to be at
least as easy as from the current stable release; means e.g. that the
version in volatile must not be higher than in testing
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Reply to: