On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 08:41:50AM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 03:05:23PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > Do not even start thinking about something like this. > > To late: if i wrote it, i thought it :) > > > If you start asking you will likely find more than thousand packages > > where someone will have a good reason for an update of the package in > > Debian 3.0. If only every 10th of these updates introduces a new bug > > (IMHO a conservative estimation) these packages will bring 100 new bugs > > into _a released stable_. > > I understand that this might happen, and that whould probably end up in a > mess, > but one point that come out from this small thread is that there are some > case in which a backport of a package to stable would be more than a kindness > from the Debian developer. This kind issue should be addressed in some way. > > Just to be sure, i was/am not referring to package like... zope. I mean: i > would > not release 2.6.1 for stable even if it add really a lot of wanted/nice > features. > I'm speacking about cases like phpgroupware which provides bugfix relase of > the > same version, or sensible packages like snort or spamassassin, which hevily > depends on up-to-date data/plugins/whatever.
what about splitting those packages in such a way that there's 1. a base package and 2. a plugin/data/whatever package 2 must be explicitly approved to be an updatable stable package. This must obviously only apply to packages such as spamassassin. this way 2 can be updated from time to time providing more recent plugin/data/whatever my 2 cents -- mattia :wq!
