On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:43:08 +0100, Brian wrote: > On Mon 26 Sep 2011 at 14:23:12 +0000, Camaleón wrote: > >> On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:33:31 +0100, Brian wrote: >> >> > It is clear we have diametrically opposite views, so best leave it >> > there. >> >> How can be that? >> >> I mean, how can you consider ClamAV needs to be up-to-date (I mean the >> program, not the firm files as firm files to detect malware are >> automatically updated regardless the version of the program) and >> Iceweasel not? You can't go so far with Iceweasel 2.x on these days... > > I have no particular view on clamav's inclusion in squeeze-updates and > only mentioned it because it is given as an example of a package which > fits criterion 4.
(...) Okay, but I hope you've noted that packages that fall in there (squeeze- updates) are for many different reasons, not just one and while clamav is put as an example of point 4) it contradicts with point 1) By following that same logic, Iceweasel can fit into point 1) and just for that be eligible to be there. Do you understand now what I try to say? > If you want me say Iceweasel 6.0 has more features and is more > up-to-date than Iceweasel 3.0.6 on Lenny you can have it, but being > up-to-date doesn't count for stable-updates and Iceweasel 3.0.6 is no > less useful now in its own terms and in the context of keeping Lenny > stable than the day it was installed. So, do you still think that Iceweasel does not fit for point 1)? > The Stable Release Manager has something to say on the policy for > stable-updates at > > http://raphaelhertzog.com/2011/06/10/people-behind-debian-philipp-kern/ Precisely (I guess you refer to his reponse to "The policy for stable updates have changed over time. Can you summarize what kind of updates are allowed nowadays?" question). He first states that things are changing and stable-updates is becoming more flexible over the time, which is my main point. To be sincere, I think the main (only?) reason for not having Mozilla products in there is just for what Sven said earlier on this thread: architecture build issues, which being a merely techical reason I can fully understand. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.09.27.11.42...@gmail.com
