Thomas Bushnell BSG [u] wrote on 09/10/2004 19:12:
Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Doing a backport of some upstream change is usually a pretty difficult
task (except for smaller security fixes). It's pretty easy to claim
"no new command line feature added", but it is pretty difficult to
c
Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ==
>
> Draft for a volatile.debian.org packaging and update policy.
>
[...]
> Policy for v.d.o
>
[...]
> - A new version uploaded to v.d.o should restrict itself to new code
>which is
Frank Küster [u] wrote on 10/10/2004 19:17:
>> Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
==
Draft for a volatile.debian.org packaging and update policy.
>
>> [...]
>
Policy for v.d.o
>
>> [...]
>
- A new versio
Sven Mueller writes:
> Say a new open source network security scanner enters the world, and it
> works well when compiled against Debian stable, we might want to add it
> to v.d.o even though it wasn't available when the last stable
> distribution was released. Or a new version of clamav is releas
John,
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 06:48:00PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Sven Mueller writes:
> > Say a new open source network security scanner enters the world, and it
> > works well when compiled against Debian stable, we might want to add it
> > to v.d.o even though it wasn't available when the la
Sven Mueller writes:
> Say a new open source network security scanner enters the world...
^^^
I wrote:
> Those things belong in the non-existent backports.debian.org, not in
> volatile.debian.org.
paddy writes:
> define 'breaks compatibilty'.
> As long as it _is_ still the same package...
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 07:57:06AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Sven Mueller writes:
> > Say a new open source network security scanner enters the world...
> ^^^
Yes, I neglected this half of the scenario, but see below.
> I wrote:
> > Those things belong in the non-existent backports.debi
John Hasler mentions,
> ... the non-existent backports.debian.org ...
An existent backports.debian.org would seem a
worthy aspiration. Were plans thereto afoot, I
would encourage.
(It has been surmised once or twice in this
thread that few people here actually use stable.
This may be so, but ju
Thaddeus H. Black writes:
> An existent backports.debian.org would seem a worthy aspiration. Were
> plans thereto afoot, I would encourage.
I agree, but I try to avoid writing anything that could be construed as
"somebody ought to do X" on debian lists.
> It has been surmised once or twice in th
John Hasler wrote:
> > This also might include working on a sort of security team for v.d.o (I
> > think both jobs should actually be combined in v.d.o).
>
> v.d.o. should be supported by the Debian security team. I don't think it
> is worth doing if it can't be. One way to help make sure Debian
I wrote:
> v.d.o. should be supported by the Debian security team. I don't think it
> is worth doing if it can't be. One way to help make sure Debian security
> can support it is to keep it as small and simple as possible.
Martin Schulze writes:
> Backports.org isn't supported by the security te
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 06:48:00PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Sven Mueller writes:
> > Say a new open source network security scanner enters the world, and it
> > works well when compiled against Debian stable, we might want to add it
> > to v.d.o even though it wasn't available when the last stab
The draft looks good, Sven. Please also include target # 5 as follows.
> Draft for a volatile.debian.org packaging and update policy.
>
> Target:
>
> volatile.debian.org (or short: v.d.o) is intended to be a repository for
> packages which degrade over time with respect to their usefulness. Th
Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Doing a backport of some upstream change is usually a pretty difficult
> task (except for smaller security fixes). It's pretty easy to claim
> "no new command line feature added", but it is pretty difficult to
> claim "no new bugs added" or "all necessary
14 matches
Mail list logo
