LoÃc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Fri, Oct 08, 2004: > > > > My proposal is to create a policy for a > > > repository with maintenance, security updates which introduces new > > > packages and provides new functionality on outdated or useless > > > packages from stable, and is built against stable. > > > Suppose a nifty new emacs feature is developed; why should that new > > functionality be excluded from this repository you are speaking of, > > merely because it isn't a security update? > > Because the nifty new emacs feature doesn't render the emacs from > stable useless. But I think your talking in loops.
But the original text sounded like "if I call part of this a security update, then I can make arbitrary other changes." In other words, only the changes necessary to keep the program useful for its purpose should get in (whether security updates or not)--that I can agree with. But doing other "new functionality", which is not actually necessary, this I cannot agree with. And this means that the maintainer/whoever must do the potentially hard work of backporting particular changes and not others from upstream releases; merely including a new upstream release is not good enough. Thomas
