On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 06:18:16PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > David Wood <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > > You're right, of course, but I don't understand why we should avoid > > doing them. With the new dirs in place and linked from the old > > locations, package conversion can start. Until then, the process waits > > to start. Why wait? > > We shouldn't. We just have to test this very carefully or the fallout > of a bad upload will create too much oposition to including multiarch > patches and slow us down overall. > > Imaging the bad blood you would create if you break libc6. Agreed. It's a very bad idea to hare off into the distance changing library packages left, right & centre if you can't demonstrate with a small set (read: one or two) of packages that it really does work. It may be plainly obvious to you that "simply" changing symlinks will work and be sufficient for the purpose, but it's far from obvious to many other people. It took me quite some time of conversation with others in IRC (primarily Tollef) to understand even some of the issues involved in making this change. As with most wide-ranging changes, it really isn't as simple as it first appears. Hugo. -- === Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk === PGP key: 1C335860 from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk --- Modern medicine does not treat causes: headaches are not --- caused by a paracetamol deficiency.
Description: Digital signature