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, > freshclam, that downloads database updates from upstream. I know that, but as far as I under stande, the whole point of volatile is to replace exactly that with a situation where each maintainer does not have do program his own freshfoo system (and worry about finding a location to download from that is known in advance to stay availbale throughout the entire lifetime of the next stable release). > > I don't see how that means that there "wouldn't be a need" for rule > > updates. > See above. The consensus seems to be that it would be undesirable to > even try to push this data through the regular package-management channel. Whose consensus is this? The debian-devel feed that reaches me shows quite enthusiastic support for pushing rule updates through an aptable repository. > > And in any case the point is that I want to run a *stable* box. I > > am not keeping consciously track with upstream changes to > > "background" software like spam filters, so I didn't *know* that a > > 3.0 version was about to happen. A user of stable should be *able* > > to remain ignorant about such chages. > Ah, but you weren't just a user of stable were you? > You'd drunk from the forbidden waters of unstable! :) Because volatile does not currently exist. > > The point is to get improved *classification* without changing the > > *interfaces*. > For me the point is to achieve function. Function may disappear totally if the update makes things break. > > If upgrading will break existing interfaces, then "when" means "after > > the current testing freezes and is released as stable". > Yes, for stable. Do we want 'just another stable' ? No, we want a way to push non-breaking data updates to stable users in a controlled way. They'll still be stable users, so they still want freedom from gratuitous breaking. > If you s/mozilla/spamassassin/ I might want to argue the point. Well, I don't want to se an update to spamassassin in volatile if it breaks APIs that my scripts use. Raising spam detection rates from 97% to 98% is useless if the update makes my mail system go catatonic and deliver all incoming mail, spam or not, to /dev/null. I run stable on my mail server because I *don't* want random breakage, and if not having any random breakage means that I'll have do delete a bit more of my spam by hand, then so be it. If I wanted random breakage, I'd run testing on the server. But I don't. > Why are we talking about mozilla? I don't know. You seem to have some kind of point about it, but I still cannot fathom what it is. -- Henning Makholm "Occam was a medieval old fart. The simplest explanation that fits the facts is always, God did it."