On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 04:45:57PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> Nonsense. It would be harder work, and maybe there is nobody around
> to do the hard work. But it is hardly impossible.
>
> This is what stability is about. What you are calling for is
> abandoning Debian's stability judgment to upstream's, in a situation
> where upstream isn't making any stability promises at all.
>
> So backport the appropriate changes only, and find programmers who can
> do a good enough job not to screw it up and destabilize it.
Just another thought... You think that people looking at the code to backport
a given set of features has a better clue about stability than the long time
experienced upstream programers?
I believe that a backport of many parts of the actual SA3 and even 2.64 or
earlier would result on a much more unstable version of SA (forked and
unsupported by upstream) than, say, 2.64. And what about security review? A
backported set of code integrated into an old core might have a better
integration? I doubt it.
I would rather have a 2.64 version in volatile (not a 3.0, right now) which
has been tested and used by thousands of users and postmasters than 2.20 or a
crippled version specific to Debian with all that possible but hard work done.
--
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
It's a soldier's duty. You wouldn't understand.
--The Colonel (Akira)
