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 even
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, in a
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
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 periodically do
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.
Please be
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 order. It is
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 packages can
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 starts
* 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 my web
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 might be
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 compatible,
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 manage it.
I
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 original
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. clamav virus
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
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
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
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 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-pinned
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 difficult
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 about
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 out-of-band,
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
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 a need.
Why
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
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 the only
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
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,
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
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 able not to
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 the
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 a bug in
* 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 not applied
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
* 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 enter
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
can't
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
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 kernel and X
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;
- volatile is
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 there are
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 Sid anyway.
I'd
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 that, graphics
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,
Paddy
* 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' keep them
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 are
* 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 support
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 to
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 this
* 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 my
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
the
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 PHP 4, depending
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
* 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
belong in
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
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 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 not? I
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 category of
* 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
--
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 fair, the
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
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. Necessary for
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 somebody else's
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
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
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 Mark wrote:
* 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 some
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.
Would
-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
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
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
a long list
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 say
* 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
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.de/
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 example a
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
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 data in
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 be
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 tests is
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 05:13:49PM +0100, paddy wrote:
Elsewhere
in the thread person 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
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 understand
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 be
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, Kevin
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
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 Paolo
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 03:44:13PM -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 -0400,
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
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- volatile is not just another place for backports, but should only
contain changes to stable programs that are necessary to keep them
functional;
I think your proposal looks good, but I would like to see this
particular item fleshed out more fully.
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041008 18:25]:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
- volatile is not just another place for backports, but should only
contain changes to stable programs that are necessary to keep them
functional;
I think your proposal looks good, but I
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Agreed. So, this means: Backport the necessary changes. Sometimes, it's
just not enough to only update the virus scanner definitions, because
new functionality is needed to scan the files (just consider that a very
new archive format gets so popular
Scripsit Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some things are not so obvious:
Should volatile include updates of packages such as debian-keyring?
debian-policy and developers-reference?
--
Henning Makholm Al lykken er i ét ord: Overvægtig!
This one time, at band camp, Henning Makholm said:
Scripsit Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some things are not so obvious:
Should volatile include updates of packages such as debian-keyring?
debian-policy and developers-reference?
I could see (possibly) debian-keyring, but policy and
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 06:31:56PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
Agreed. So, this means: Backport the necessary changes. Sometimes, it's
just not enough to only update the virus scanner definitions, because
new functionality is needed to scan the files (just consider that a very
new archive
Hi Andreas,
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 example a package whois also a candidate for volatile?
Regestries change
also sprach Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.10.08.2019 +0200]:
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...
I would say that a new version of whois could be included in
* Henning Makholm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041008 19:50]:
Scripsit Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some things are not so obvious:
Should volatile include updates of packages such as debian-keyring?
debian-policy and developers-reference?
Pros: Well, these updates don't break any thing.
Cons:
Hi Martin,
On Friday, 08 Oct 2004, you wrote:
also sprach Martin Zobel-Helas [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004.10.08.2019 +0200]:
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...
I would
* Duncan Findlay ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041008 20:10]:
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 06:31:56PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
Agreed. So, this means: Backport the necessary changes. Sometimes, it's
just not enough to only update the virus scanner definitions, because
new functionality is needed to
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [041008 20:30]:
And I certainly don't think it should be volatile.debian.*net*.
I'm open to changing this; however, for the start, it's easier with
debian.net - same as planet that also came to life as planet.debian.net.
Cheers,
Andi
--
On Oct 08, martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would say that a new version of whois could be included in
volatile if it becomes useless. I don't think anything should be in
Is looking up .org domains in the wrong whois server enough to be
considered useless?
What about .pw domains?
What
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
