On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 03:37:57PM +0100, paddy wrote:
> >
> > What happens with a package orphaned from stable?
>
> As I understand it, the stable qa team manage it.
Same should be with packages in v.d.o, since is part of the infrastructure of
Debian (read WILL be, if agreed upon).
> I hadn't
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 04:29:37PM +0100, paddy wrote:
> Virus definition updates fit in the 'undesirable' category. Thats not
> to say some database can't be packaged. Here's a couple of references:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> (I'll post a reply with the ml archive web urls,
Thomas,
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 11:53:03PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 'stable even for users who are "misusing" the system.' sounds like it
> > could turn out to be a tall order, if it is intended to have wider
> > application.
>
> It is a tall or
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 11:33:49AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041017 11:20]:
> > Andreas Barth wrote:
> > >
> > > I could however see the possiblity to add a new package "mozilla1.7",
> > > that users can optionally install. However, I also won't like it.
>
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 11:33:49AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041017 11:20]:
> > Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041011 18:30]:
> > > > The goal should be that I, as a user, can add volatile to my
> > > > sources.list and pe
paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 'stable even for users who are "misusing" the system.' sounds like it
> could turn out to be a tall order, if it is intended to have wider
> application.
It is a tall order. It is also one that Debian has done fairly well,
by having very strict policies about
* Martin Schulze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041017 11:20]:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041011 18:30]:
> > > The goal should be that I, as a user, can add volatile to my
> > > sources.list and periodically do an apt-get upgrade - without risking
> > > to suddenly have
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041011 18:30]:
> > The goal should be that I, as a user, can add volatile to my
> > sources.list and periodically do an apt-get upgrade - without risking
> > to suddenly have my web browser updated to a new major release where
> > it sta
Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> Can volatile receive critical updates which are usually not applied to
> >> stable because backports are not available for some reason?
> >
> > Are you speaking about mozilla? ;)
>
> Mozilla, GnuPG, and maybe even PHP 4, depending on sarge's lifetime.
> Other complex pac
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 10:33:40AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I can see your point of view here. Ironically, I've been assuming,
> > purely on names, that you are more likely to be living in an english
> > speaking country (as am I), whilst Sven mi
paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can see your point of view here. Ironically, I've been assuming,
> purely on names, that you are more likely to be living in an english
> speaking country (as am I), whilst Sven might be less likely.
More to the point, the issue isn't whether a well-behaved
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 10:26:34PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:05:05PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > But isn't volatile.d.o supposed to *be* the out-of-band mechanism
> > > (whatever out-of-band means here)?
>
> > No. c
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:51:43PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Any pre-existing piece of software (let's call it X) which interfaces
> > with A must stay fully functional. New features may be added to A and
> > might not be available via the o
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 11:08:43PM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 02:32:01PM +0100, paddy wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, deja vu ;)
> >
> > What happens to packages that become orphaned?
>
> What happens with a package orphaned from stable?
As I understand it, the stable qa team man
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 09:44:30PM +0200, Sven Mueller wrote:
> paddy [u] wrote on 12/10/2004 18:14:
>
> >>If you put it that way, I have to agree with you. However, I would make
> >>one restriction:
> >>- packages in volatile have to keep their commandline (both input and
> >> output) interfaces
I wrote:
> I see no reason for new packages to ever go into volatile. Such things
> belong in backports.
Jesus Climent writes:
> You seem to have missed a very important ground of volatile: add new
> packages in a controled way when backporting code to the version in
> stable is far more difficul
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 07:22:15PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > To be fair, the issue is that if were just rules, there wouldn't
> > be a need.
>
> Why not? I pretty much want to have the spamfilter rules on my mail
> box updated from time to time. Currently that has lead me to put
> a low
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 12:34:02PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
>
> I see no reason for new packages to ever go into volatile. Such things
> belong in backports.
You seem to have missed a very important ground of volatile: add new packages
in a controled way when backporting code to the version in
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 02:32:01PM +0100, paddy wrote:
>
> Hmm, deja vu ;)
>
> What happens to packages that become orphaned?
What happens with a package orphaned from stable?
--
Jesus Climent info:www.pumuki.org
Unix SysAdm|Linux User #66350|Debian Develop
Daniel Burrows wrote:
> I generally have to resort to backports or unstable when installing Debian
> on recent hardware, because we don't update hardware drivers in stable.
> Would the kernel and X be candidates for volatile?
Let me throw something else into the discussion here. With the new
Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any pre-existing piece of software (let's call it X) which interfaces
> with A must stay fully functional. New features may be added to A and
> might not be available via the original interface, but any feature
> previously available must still work in th
Hi, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Henning Makholm in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Some things are not so obvious:
>>
>> Should volatile include updates of packages such as debian-keyring?
>> debian-policy and developers-reference?
>
> Those who need these packages will run Sid anyway.
I hope I'll be
Scripsit paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:05:05PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > But isn't volatile.d.o supposed to *be* the out-of-band mechanism
> > (whatever out-of-band means here)?
> No. clamav virus signatures, for example, can be maintained by a program,
> freshcla
Henning Makholm [u] wrote on 12/10/2004 15:46:
Scripsit Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Henning Makholm [u] wrote on 11/10/2004 20:22:
[volatile.debian.org]
Security fixes should be handled by security.d.o.
Perhaps yes, perhaps no.
Security fixes *to* packages already in volatile is a grey area
paddy [u] wrote on 12/10/2004 18:14:
If you put it that way, I have to agree with you. However, I would make
one restriction:
- packages in volatile have to keep their commandline (both input and
output) interfaces compatible,
would that be 'have to' as in 'MUST'?
Yes.
define compatible.
Not rea
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 05:02:23PM +0200, Sven Mueller wrote:
> Henning Makholm [u] wrote on 12/10/2004 16:05:
>
> >>For instance, suppose there are Packages A and B in volatile.
> >>(A) has an interface (1) that is only used by (B) in the whole of debian.
> >
> >"In the whole of Debian" is not th
sven writes:
> - volatile.d.o: security and virus scanners, anti-spam software and
> similarly fast moving software needed mostly on servers
- volatile.d.o: security and virus scanners, anti-spam software and
similarly fast moving software
> - backports.d.o: New (versions of) user interface sof
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:05:05PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 07:22:15PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > Scripsit paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > > To be fair, the issue is that if were just rules, there wouldn't
> > > > be
Henning Makholm [u] wrote on 12/10/2004 16:05:
For instance, suppose there are Packages A and B in volatile.
(A) has an interface (1) that is only used by (B) in the whole of debian.
"In the whole of Debian" is not the only concern here; I would say it
is not even relevant. Admins of un*x systems a
Scripsit paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 07:22:15PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To be fair, the issue is that if were just rules, there wouldn't
> > > be a need.
> > Why not?
> Well, the argument goes:
> that can be done
Scripsit Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm [u] wrote on 11/10/2004 20:22:
> [volatile.debian.org]
> > Security fixes should be handled by security.d.o.
> Perhaps yes, perhaps no.
Security fixes *to* packages already in volatile is a grey area, yes.
I thought I was talking abou
Henning Makholm [u] wrote on 11/10/2004 20:22:
[volatile.debian.org]
Security fixes should be handled by security.d.o.
Perhaps yes, perhaps no. At least it should follow two rules:
1) If not handled by security.d.o, it should at least be handled
in close cooperation with security.d.o
2) It has t
Henning Makholm [u] wrote on 11/10/2004 19:48:
>> Scripsit Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>
I could however see the possiblity to add a new package "mozilla1.7",
that users can optionally install. However, I also won't like it.
>
>>
>> Me neither. For example, if I was already using s
This one time, at band camp, John Hasler said:
> Henning Makholm writes:
>
> > 1. Volatile is a means for *pushing* updates to stable
> > installations, where such updates are necessary for *preserving*
> > the utility of packages due to changes of the outside world.
>
> > 2. "Neces
Andi,
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 09:01:41PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * paddy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041011 21:00]:
> > Happily, Andi appears open-minded, but focused on the hard work of
> > doing the 'obviously right' things first.
>
> Well, I'm just waiting for maintainers to say: "Yes, please
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 07:22:15PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 05:06:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>
> > > A backport of a new Mozilla release is something vastly
> > > different from new rules for a spam filter,
>
> > To be
* paddy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041011 21:00]:
> Happily, Andi appears open-minded, but focused on the hard work of
> doing the 'obviously right' things first.
Well, I'm just waiting for maintainers to say: "Yes, please include a
more uptodate version of my package foo."
Cheers,
Andi
--
http
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 01:13:40PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> paddy writes:
> > Whatever the solution is to the mozilla problem, there does at least
> > appear to be consensus that there has been one.
>
> IMO Mozilla belongs in something like backports.debian.org.
It's certainly not in the categ
Scripsit paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 05:06:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > A backport of a new Mozilla release is something vastly
> > different from new rules for a spam filter,
> To be fair, the issue is that if were just rules, there wouldn't
> be a need.
Why n
paddy writes:
> Whatever the solution is to the mozilla problem, there does at least
> appear to be consensus that there has been one.
IMO Mozilla belongs in something like backports.debian.org.
--
John Hasler
Scripsit Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I could however see the possiblity to add a new package "mozilla1.7",
> that users can optionally install. However, I also won't like it.
Me neither. For example, if I was already using somebody else's
backport of mozilla1.7, I wouldn't like it if vola
* John Hasler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041011 19:55]:
> Andreas Barth writes:
> > I could however see the possiblity to add a new package "mozilla1.7",
> > that users can optionally install. However, I also won't like it.
> I see no reason for new packages to ever go into volatile. Such things
> belo
Andreas Barth writes:
> I could however see the possiblity to add a new package "mozilla1.7",
> that users can optionally install. However, I also won't like it.
I see no reason for new packages to ever go into volatile. Such things
belong in backports.
--
John Hasler
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 05:06:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > >> Can volatile receive critical updates which are usually not applied to
> > >> stable because backports are not available for some reason?
>
> > Mozilla, GnuPG, and maybe even PH
Henning Makholm writes:
> 1. Volatile is a means for *pushing* updates to stable
> installations, where such updates are necessary for *preserving*
> the utility of packages due to changes of the outside world.
> 2. "Necessary for preserving the utility" should be judged under
>
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041011 18:30]:
> The goal should be that I, as a user, can add volatile to my
> sources.list and periodically do an apt-get upgrade - without risking
> to suddenly have my web browser updated to a new major release where
> it starts behaving differently, all m
Scripsit Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Can volatile receive critical updates which are usually not applied to
> >> stable because backports are not available for some reason?
> Mozilla, GnuPG, and maybe even PHP 4, depending on sarge's lifetime.
> Other complex packages can easily enter
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 03:37:21PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * paddy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041011 15:35]:
> > On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 02:02:47PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > Of course we need to reserve the right to drop packages - but, doing
> > > that would still be bad. Adding a package
* paddy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041011 15:35]:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 02:02:47PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > 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 sup
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
* 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' ke
Andi,
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 05:51:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> - It should allow any administrator to "just use" volatile, as they "just
> use" security.d.o, and they should be confident that nothing is broken by
> that;
It would be great to get some clarification of this.
Regards,
P
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 11:42:57AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 10:42:58AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> I think those are arguments for making releases more quickly, rather
> >> than anything else.
> >
> > I'm not sure about th
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Re: Henning Makholm in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Should volatile include updates of packages such as debian-keyring?
>>> debian-policy and developers-reference?
>>
>> Those who need these packages will run S
paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 10:42:58AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I think those are arguments for making releases more quickly, rather
>> than anything else.
>
> I'm not sure about that, graphics hardware, for example, is far faster moving
> than stable. And
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 05:51:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> we had some discussion about volatile, and I'm more and more considering to
> pick this task up. I think some issues are quite obvious:
>
> - packages should only go in in cooperation with the maintainers;
>
> - volatil
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 10:42:58AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I generally have to resort to backports or unstable when installing Debia=
> > n=20
> > on recent hardware, because we don't update hardware drivers in stable. =20
> > Would the ker
Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I generally have to resort to backports or unstable when installing Debia=
> n=20
> on recent hardware, because we don't update hardware drivers in stable. =20
> Would the kernel and X be candidates for volatile?
I think those are arguments for making
Martin Zobel-Helas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i would like to see some "policy", what, when and under which
> circumstances gets included to volatile.d.n.
The most sensible policy would be a case by case consideration. Some
packages can sanely have the desired features backported [1], and some
* Andreas Barth:
>> Can volatile receive critical updates which are usually not applied to
>> stable because backports are not available for some reason?
>
> Are you speaking about mozilla? ;)
Mozilla, GnuPG, and maybe even PHP 4, depending on sarge's lifetime.
Other complex packages can easily e
Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Re: Henning Makholm in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Should volatile include updates of packages such as debian-keyring?
>> debian-policy and developers-reference?
>
> Those who need these packages will run Sid anyway.
I'd sincerely hope not. The fact that few
* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041010 16:40]:
> * Andreas Barth:
> > - volatile is not "just another place" for backports, but should only
> > contain changes to stable programs that are necessary to keep them
> > functional;
> Can volatile receive critical updates which are usually no
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> also sprach Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.08.2029 +0200]:
>> Is looking up .org domains in the wrong whois server enough to be
>> considered "useless"?
>
> I found it rather useless in woody when the .org registrar changed.
I'd say it is
* Andreas Barth:
> - volatile is not "just another place" for backports, but should only
> contain changes to stable programs that are necessary to keep them
> functional;
Can volatile receive critical updates which are usually not applied to
stable because backports are not available for som
This one time, at band camp, Kevin Mark said:
> On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 10:43:05AM -0400, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Kevin Mark said:
> > > On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 03:01:11AM -0400, Kevin Ma
Jesus Climent [u] wrote on 09/10/2004 02:28:
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 03:51:29PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
I generally have to resort to backports or unstable when installing Debian
on recent hardware, because we don't update hardware drivers in stable.
Would the kernel and X be candidates fo
Here I go, replying to myself again ...
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 10:48:15PM +0100, paddy wrote:
> clamav is a really good example of a very self-contained, at least in
> some setups. two pipes, no privs (someone corrrect me if I'm wrong).
> In the case of clamav, what i believe is at issue is not
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 03:44:13PM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 10:43:05AM -0400, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Kevin Mark said:
> > > On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 03:01:11AM -
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 10:48:15PM +0100, paddy wrote:
> maybe there is a place for this, but my understanding is the evolution
> of data formats is coupled to changes in the scaning engine and backward
> compatibility is maintained upstream for as long as the upstream
> maintainers deem reasonable
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 03:54:11PM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 04:37:14PM +0100, paddy wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 10:43:05AM -0400, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > This one time, at band camp, Kevin Mark said:
> > > > On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Francesco Paol
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 11:44:41AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> Generally, new packages could be added to volatile, as long as there is
> a very good usage of them. However, if I see how painful security
> updates for the kernel currently are for the security team, I think we
> should better re
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 04:37:14PM +0100, paddy wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 10:43:05AM -0400, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Kevin Mark said:
> > > On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 03:01:11AM -0400,
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 10:43:05AM -0400, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Kevin Mark said:
> > On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 03:01:11AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> > > > Packages like virus checkers seem to
Jesus Climent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just another thought... You think that people looking at the code to backport
> a given set of features has a better clue about stability than the long time
> experienced upstream programers?
I expect the Debian maintainers of such a package to understa
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 05:13:49PM +0100, paddy wrote:
> Elsewhere
> in the thread makes the point that hardware drivers could come
> into the 'useless' category, and I know exactly what he means: I've been
> there.
And seconds after I pressed the send button I got that horrible sinking feeling.
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 04:45:57PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > When spamassassin is upgraded, it's more than just the rules. Often
> > the method of parsing the message is changed -- leading to better
> > results, or support for different te
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 10:43:05AM -0400, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Kevin Mark said:
> > On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 03:01:11AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> > > > Packages like virus checkers seem to
This one time, at band camp, Kevin Mark said:
> On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 03:01:11AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> > > Packages like virus checkers seem to be
> > > composed of 2 parts: the app program and the data where the
also sprach Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.09.1618 +0200]:
> That sounds like a candidate for a stable update to me, not
> volatile.
You mean an r-release? The problem with those is that they have too
much inertia to be able to provide fixes quickly. So then our users
will have an inope
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 08:19:24PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> On Friday, 08 Oct 2004, you wrote:
> > That's all for now. Comments and suggestions are welcome.
>
> i would like to see some "policy", what, when and under which
> circumstances gets included to volatile.d.n.
>
> Is for exampl
Re: Henning Makholm in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Some things are not so obvious:
>
> Should volatile include updates of packages such as debian-keyring?
> debian-policy and developers-reference?
Those who need these packages will run Sid anyway.
Christoph
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.d
* Jesus Climent ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041009 11:10]:
> I meant for the
> kernel, which in some cases it could be tagged non automatic for updates, so
> that only the package is installed if the users wishes so. Making 2.6 kernels
> available for woody could have been an scenario where this approach
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 03:01:11AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> > Packages like virus checkers seem to be
> > composed of 2 parts: the app program and the data where the data in
> > this case are virus sigs and the app is sa
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 08:47:27AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
>
> > > Would the kernel and X be candidates for volatile?
> >
> > I dont see any reason why not, if they can be marked as NotAutomatic.
> >
>
> Due to versioned dependencies, that could be impractical for X, which has
>
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 03:01:11AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> Packages like virus checkers seem to be
> composed of 2 parts: the app program and the data where the data in
> this case are virus sigs and the app is say clamav. And the 'volitile'
> part is the virus sigs whereas the app (once it hits
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 05:51:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> we had some discussion about volatile, and I'm more and more considering to
> pick this task up. I think some issues are quite obvious:
>
> - packages should only go in in c
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 02:28:10AM +0200, Jesus Climent wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 03:51:29PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> >
> > I generally have to resort to backports or unstable when installing
> > Debian
> > on recent hardware, because we don't update hardware drivers in stable.
>
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 04:45:57PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > When spamassassin is upgraded, it's more than just the rules. Often
> > the method of parsing the message is changed -- leading to better
> > results, or support for different te
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> This is what stability is about. What you are calling for is
> abandoning Debian's stability judgment to upstream's, in a situation
> where upstream isn't making any stability promises at all.
I can speak only for myself, but I can guarantee you t
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 04:45:57PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> Nonsense. It would be harder work, and maybe there is nobody around
> to do the hard work. But it is hardly impossible.
>
> This is what stability is about. What you are calling for is
> abandoning Debian's stability judg
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 03:51:29PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
>
> I generally have to resort to backports or unstable when installing Debian
> on recent hardware, because we don't update hardware drivers in stable.
> Would the kernel and X be candidates for volatile?
I dont see any reason w
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 08:19:24PM +0200, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
>
> Is for example a package "whois" also a candidate for volatile?
> Regestries change from time to time; i just consider .org changed within
> the last 2,5 years...
Perhaps... if it renders it unusable for getting whois answers
Duncan Findlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When spamassassin is upgraded, it's more than just the rules. Often
> the method of parsing the message is changed -- leading to better
> results, or support for different tests is added, etc. It would be
> very difficult to only backport the appropriat
This one time, at band camp, paddy said:
> Andi,
>
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 05:51:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > I think some issues are quite obvious:
> >
> > - packages should only go in in cooperation with the maintainers;
> >
> > - volatile is not "just another place" for backports, b
Andi,
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 05:51:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> I think some issues are quite obvious:
>
> - packages should only go in in cooperation with the maintainers;
>
> - volatile is not "just another place" for backports, but should only
> contain changes to stable programs tha
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 03:51:29PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Friday 08 October 2004 11:51 am, 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 ge
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>--gKMricLos+KVdGMg
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Disposition: inline
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>also sprach Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.08.2051 +0200]:
>> Well, I would start smal
On Friday 08 October 2004 11:51 am, 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 generally have to resort to backports or unstable when installing Debian
on r
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Some things are not so obvious:
> > Should volatile include updates of packages such as debian-keyring?
>
> debian-keyring? Absolutely. Out-of-date versions of this are
> ted
On Friday 08 October 2004 22:10, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
--cut--
> > - Good candidates are clamav (including spin-offs), spamassassin,
> > chkrootkit;
>
> I'd add IDS like snort.
I'd add packages like ca-certificates. Perhaps it would be usefull to group
them in some manner...
--
pu
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
