* Anand Kumria ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060207 09:52]: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:13:07AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > * Anand Kumria ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060207 04:34]: > > > I also think volatile is precisely the wrong place to put this kind of > > > data -- it isn't part of the default apt.sources for one thing; and it > > > places an extra burden on the maintainer(s) (who know have to track > > > three different upgrade paths, etc.). > > > > Only because you have a prejudice against volatile doesn't mean its the > > wrong place. Volatile is rather the exactly right place for this kind of > > update. > > It is precisely the wrong place because volatile isn't in > apt.sources by default. If it were, it'd be a different story.
You mean, we better don't do anything than to accept packages into a repository that is actually in apt.sources on a lot of machines, even on the debian.org-machines? > As it is, volatile is a great solution in search of a problem. It is > unfortunate that you, and others, seem to latch onto things like as a > reason to make volatile useful. You mean, like accepting a new locale package into volatile? Ah, that's you who don't like it. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
