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 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.
AOL. Thanks, Henning, for saying it so much better than I could. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
pgp5hMEkqM8u4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
