On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 10:09:13AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > >> > IMHO, sloopy security support (by uploading new upstream versions) is > >> > better than no security support. > >> > >> Are you prepared to make sure all the packages that depend on mozilla > >> will have packages ready to enter at once? > > > > Are you prepared to kick all packages that depend on mozilla out of > > Debian completely? > > How about actually maintaining them?
That's exactly what I think we should do. > > That's the choice we've got. Moving them to > > backports.org or volatile, which are not carried by the mirror network, > > not included in the default apt sources.list, and not getting DSA > > announcements, IMHO, counts as "kicking them out of Debian". > > Oh, I see. I think the whole point of volatile is that it is *part* > of Debian. Except that it isn't, for all the reasons I described. Users will not see packages in volatile unless they go out of their way to reconfigure apt, they will not receive DSA announcements regarding new versions of packages there, and the archive is not carried by the standard Debian mirrors. Can a bug be closed by an upload to volatile? noah
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
