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 assumption that the machine that runs stable does not itself > change. (I.e., appeals to "this is needed for modern hardware" > don't count). > 3. No update pushed through volatile should ever change any > user interfaces or programmatic interface. (How paranoid > developers are expected to be in ensuring this is negotiable, > but it must at least be the *goal* that no interfaces change.) > ... > An update of mozilla-browser would be appropriate for volatile if it > did not change the upstream codebase, but, say, updated the default > SSL root certificate set in response to announcements from a > well-known CA. > An update that fixed the default style sheet to include new tags > from XHTML 2.1, assuming that it was possible without code changes, > would be borderline. Anything more involved than that - no thanks. Sounds about right to me. -- John Hasler