Michael Tautschnig wrote: > [...] (nice technical insight) >> In my opinion all the programs with the ability to talk to clamd (or to >> invoke clamscan/clamdscan) can be safely left under stable. The user has >> still got the ability to use an updated clamav from volatile with no >> problems at all. >> On the other hand, programs which can only link libclamav should be >> divided into two categories: real-life tools and other tools. >> In the the first set are all those things which are designed to scan >> live malware, like mail or web scanners. These should preferably go to >> volatile. >> The second group contains all the rest, which is basically GUIs, offline >> file system scanners, and the like. Leaving these under stable is >> probably fair enough. >> > > There is just a slightly archive-specific problem: A package in main must not > depend on something outside main (at least so I guess, I couldn't find the > docs > stating this rightaway). We'd thus need some clamav package in main, and not > only in volatile. Which more or less is the situation we have today. > > To me, the approach of moving clamav + all its rdepends to volatile really > looks > like the only option. I thus dared to question all the refusals stated thus > far. > I'd really like to see some fundamental issues arising by a move to volatile. > Still, of course, it means that quite a few packages will need to move to > volatile-only.
A move to volatile-only was not prepared early enough and is a no go at the moment from a release point of view as it's not clear what packages (or part of packages) would have to become volatile-only, it's unclear how this would end up in the release notes AND all this agreed by the affected maintainers AND get done within a couple of days from now to not disturb the rest of the release preparations Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
