On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 04:41:25PM -0400, Roberto C. S?nchez wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 06:17:43PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > > I think shorewall would be a suitable candidate for uploading into > > volatile-sloppy, which lets users install individual updated packages > > on stable systems. That should eliminate this issue, for both the > > current release and future ones. (Other well-known packages which are > > handled by the volatile system include spamassassin and clamav; > > shorewall would get filed under 'sloppy' because upgrades across > > releases require administrative attention to changes in the config > > files, so should not be performed automatically) > > > > Basically, a user would run a pure Debian-stable system on their > > firewall, with the single exception of the shorewall package. > > > Personally, I would prefer to go the backports.org route. What would be > the advantages of the volatile route?
Integration and mirroring, but backports.org would also suffice to solve the problem. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Shorewall-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-devel
