On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 18:55:32 +0000 Stephen Gran <sg...@debian.org> wrote: >This one time, at band camp, Michael Tautschnig said: >> 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. > >A way around this problem might be to integrate volatile slightly more >with the main dak archive. Treating volatile (from the point of view >of dak) as a kind of proposed-updates queue (that may or may not get >rolled into stable point releases) would allow us to have packages in >main depend on packages in main/volatile (I think - ICBW).
Couldn't we achieve the same result by just relaxing the policy of what's allowed in proposed-updates for clamav and rdepends with a lot less technical complexity? With the volatile approach you'd also have to exclude stuff not related to clamav from proposed-updates. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org