On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 02:02:47PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * paddy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041011 12:55]: > > On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 05:51:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > - volatile is not "just another place" for backports, but should only > > > contain changes to stable programs that are necessary to keep them > > > functional; > > > I would like 'must' keep them functional: IOW, voltaile is prepared to > > drop packages from volatile that are, for whatever reason, unable to keep > > up with the purpose. It would be sad if volatile ended up containing > > useless packages! > > Of course we need to reserve the right to drop packages - but, doing > that would still be bad. Adding a package to volatile means for me that > we are very confident that we can support it till the current debian > major release is archived. If we can't do that, we shouldn't have added > it in the first place.
Hmm, deja vu ;) What happens to packages that become orphaned? Regards, Paddy -- Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
