On Friday 13 March 2009 13:54:35 Teodor wrote: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Jim Popovitch <jimpop@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 13:59, Teodor <mteodor@gmail.com> wrote: > >> IMO release candidate versions should not be uploaded to volatile. > > > > IMO "volatile" as used in "debian-volatile" is indicative of the > > project, not the package. ClamAV, a "moving target" type project, is > > an excellent example of a debian-volatile candidate. > > I'm not sure what you want to say, maybe I wasn't clear enough. The > discussion is not whether or not "clamav" should be in volatile or not > (I'm on the PRO side), but if an intermediate beta version should be > updated in volatile or not (rc1, rc2...). I'm still convinced that > clamav 0.95rc1 should *NOT* be updated in volatile, for sure I won't > upgrade to a RCx until the stable version 0.95 (or greater) is > released. I'm in agreement with Teodor. I think clam-av is probably a good candidate for volatile--at least virus definitions and also the binary/library if needs to take advantage of the new definitions. But if the package is not suitable for unstable (and generally RCs aren't), it is not suitable for volatile or even volatile-sloppy. (Maybe this warrants a new thread, but what's the real difference between volatile-sloppy and backports?) -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.