Re: volatile Suitability for Protocol Updates
On 18.01.10 12:51, Brian Ryans wrote:
> Prescript: CCs to me are no longer necessary. I'm subscribed to
> -volatile now. Thanks, Peter, for doing so.
private Cc's are also forbidden on debian mailing lists, unless the poster
asks for them.
> Quoting Peter Pentchev on 2010-01-18 03:53:56:
> > IMHO, the backports archive would be a better choice for this.
>
> from what you explain later on in your reply, I'm more heavily leaning
> toward backports vs volatile.
The backports is unofficial repository afaik.
The volatile is suitable just for things like this, just the description is
apparently not well-formed.
However for volatile there should not be major re-write of software, since
that could cause unstability. Patches only made to support new protocol
should be acceptable, but I noticed issue with gtk-gnutella because of big
code rewrite which the author did not explain properly so it was refused.
Otoh, spamassassin update that required some configuration changes was
pushed to volatile-sloppy which has lowered expectations.
Volatile is official so if it can be pushed to volatile, it should.
Of course, new version can be uplaoded to backports (if the maintainers
accept it), but thinking "it's in backports, it needs not to be in volatile"
is bad.
--
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.
Christian Science Programming: "Let God Debug It!".
Reply to: