On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Scott Minns wrote:
> Hiya all,
>
> Thanks for your replys, I like the idea of making some packages
> "perishable" the trouble is where would you draw the line? I could do
> with some of the new features in proftpd, but that would not be
> perishable so the problem is
Hi,
I think a problem is the difference between stable software and stable
distro... i.e.: perl 5.8 is the stable release of perl, but it isn't
into the stable distro, because managing a distro to be stable requires
packages not to being upgraded...
I think the idea of the "Current" release would
Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * spamassassin
>> * snort
>>
>> could be considered perishable because their effectiveness is reduced over
>> time. Such classed packages should be allowed to be updated in stable, I
>> feel. Of course, it could be argued that any package is p
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 08:55:03AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> After taking a look at the RC bug count, I don't see debian-installer
> holding up things at the moment.
Never the less, it has been one of those "must do" items, one of the
milestones that needs to be reached before a release is even c
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 08:57:45AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:02:54 -0700, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Oddly enough, most FreeBSD sysadmins don't appear to mind doing things much
> >more invasive than a dist-upgrade, every six months. This has largely to do
> >
* Andrew Pollock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 03:20:27PM +, Scott Minns wrote:
> > Hiya all,
> > First of all let me introduce myself, my name is Scott Minns, i'm a
> > debian user, not a developer. That most likely makes you question why
> > i'm using thins mailing l
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:02:54 -0700, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Oddly enough, most FreeBSD sysadmins don't appear to mind doing things much
>more invasive than a dist-upgrade, every six months. This has largely to do
>with the fact that most upgrades are very smooth, and don't require, s
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 15:41:13 -0600, Chad Walstrom
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I like the "Debian is ready when it's ready" argument. Two years
>between releases may be a bit long for my taste. A year would be nice,
>and six months is highly optimistic. Once debian-installer is polished,
>things
Sorry, you are correct.
I apologize for the error.
> Lucas, not only did you horribly misquote my statement as coming from
> Scott, but you also seem to not having read my mail thoroughly. Nowhere
> did I suggest that installed packages stop working when "expired", did I?
> Please re-read my sugg
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 10:49:20AM +0800, Isaac To wrote:
> > "Henning" == Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Henning> I stand corrected, apparently. (But I have yet to imagine which
> Henning> arguments would be used against doing a release if we happen to
> Henning>
> "Henning" == Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Henning> I stand corrected, apparently. (But I have yet to imagine which
Henning> arguments would be used against doing a release if we happen to
Henning> find testing in a freezeable state 6 months after sarge
Henning>
Scripsit Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Everybody seems to agree that new stable versions *should* be out
> > about every 6 months.
> No.
I stand corrected, apparently. (But I have yet to imagine which
arguments would be used against doing a
Lucas Albers wrote:
> Julian Mehnle wrote:
> > I know this is no panacea, since in many cases, the maintainer cannot
> > know whether a package will perish at all (like when all spammers
> > promptly give up "advancing" their software, so a given version of
> > spamassassin would stay useful foreve
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Everybody seems to agree that new stable versions *should* be out
> about every 6 months.
[...]
No.
cu andreas
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 03:29:10PM -0600, Graham Wilson wrote:
> I don't think that is true. I think developers (and users) have a wide
> range of opinions as to how often there should be a new Debian
> release.
I like the "Debian is ready when it's ready" argument. Two years
between releases may
My friend has a high volume mail server running spamassassin 2.31
Oops the spamassassin stopped working.
Now I have 12,000 people angry with me.
Take that to the bank.
--luke
> Scott Minns wrote:
> I know this is no panacea, since in many cases, the maintainer cannot know
> whether a package wil
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 10:41:22PM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Everybody seems to agree that new stable versions *should* be out
> about every 6 months.
I don't think that is true. I think developers (and users) have a wide
range of opinions as to how often there should be a new Debian release
Scott Minns wrote:
> Thanks for your replyâs, I like the idea of making some packages
> "perishable" the trouble is where would you draw the line?
We could add an optional control field "Expires: $date" to packages, so package
maintainers could decide for themselves. After a package has expired,
Hiya all,
Thanks for your reply’s, I like the idea of making some packages
"perishable" the trouble is where would you draw the line? I could do
with some of the new features in proftpd, but that would not be
perishable – so the problem is still there.
The main problem is that software is moving
Scripsit Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Scott Minns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Stable - released when the software is rock sold and very mature
> >
> > Current - This is software that has been in testing for six months and
> > experienced no critical bugs, floors or dependenc
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 03:20:27PM +, Scott Minns wrote:
> Hiya all,
> First of all let me introduce myself, my name is Scott Minns, i'm a
> debian user, not a developer. That most likely makes you question why
> i'm using thins mailing list at all, let alone having the gall to
> propose al
Scott Minns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> Stable - released when the software is rock sold and very mature
>
> Current - This is software that has been in testing for six months and
> experienced no critical bugs, floors or dependency
> problems. A new version is releas
22 matches
Mail list logo
