Re: Debian should not modify the kernels!

[Dylan Thurston]

On 2003-10-06, Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 05:54:09PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > Because it is the only thing I could find that reflects Debian's
>> > take on security fixes: feature backports are to be avoided.
>> 
>> That's because it's the position of the *Security Team*, and is
>> certainly not binding on other developers who are making changes to
>> packages in *unstable*.
>
> I don't see how the package being in unstable affects any part of this
> argument.  Will the feature backport be less desirable when the 
> kernel-source package is released in a stable revision of Debian?

Yes.  Once the kernel-source is in a stable revision, feature
backports of *new* features will be undesirable.

The point of the policy is to prevent behaviour from changing without
warning or unnecessarily.

Peace,
Dylan

Re: Annoyances of aptitude (Was: Where are we now?) (Was: Bits from the RM)

[Dylan Thurston]

On 2003-10-03, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   I see.  It's a lot simpler, from the point of view of maintainability,
> to have a single user's manual for both offline and online perusal.
>
>   One nice way to make this less of an issue would be to rewrite the
> documentation in a structured format (eg, texinfo or docbook) and add a
> reader for that format to aptitude.  Unfortunately, writing the reader
> could be a lot of work.

Why not use the 'info' reader?  It's not optimal, but almost anything
is better than paging through a long text file.

Peace,
Dylan