On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 01:16:30PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> > It is my point of view that with volatile in place, the policy for allowing
> > updates on such repository could introduce things which break other apps.
>
> This policy is even not ok for a normal major debian upgrade. We have
> exim and exim4, we have inn and inn2 for exactly that reason, and we should
> also provide spamassassin and spamassassin3. This doesn't mean that
> spamassassin3 shouldn't be added to volatile.debian.net, but it
> definitly means that we should not break api by providing it as
> spamassassin.
I did not mean that we should not introduce sa3 in volatile, but definitelly,
if the major upgrade on the release cycle of volatile include all the
applications which have a dependency on each other and it is a closed update,
i do not see why not.
a person upgrading volatile should "apt-get volatile-upgrade" the whole
repository, not just parts of it.
If not, is a backports issue, not a closed release set.
--
Jesus Climent info:www.pumuki.org
Unix SysAdm|Linux User #66350|Debian Developer|2.4.27|Helsinki Finland
GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69
He's almost a stranger, and I prefer him to you!
--Sandra Bloom (Big Fish)
