[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [RFC] Renaming the user-setup templates

Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> writes:

> On Friday 29 June 2007 18:47, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> writes:
>> > On Friday 29 June 2007 16:58, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> >> Well, we can do not guarantee it but if it's simple (and on this
>> >> case it's) we could provide it.
>> >
>> > For all eternity? Don't see the point really.
>> Sure not. At least for lenny release and then we can drop them again.
> Please explain why the compatibility issue would be any less after lenny 
> then for etch->lenny?

It would be more or less as deprecated API on libraries. We would
support it and drop it after some time.

> In this case it would maybe be possible, but keeping compatibility here 
> would mean that we would be morally obliged to keep compatibility for 
> _any_ changes affecting preseeding and I'd be willing to bet that in 
> other cases that really would mean we would have to include really 
> strange/complex hacks or that it would just be impossible [1]. Should we 
> then just postpone the change until after the lenny release?
> I do not think it is worth it to limit ourselves like that.
> I really do not think it is worth keeping compatibility on one minor area 
> when we can expect major changes in preseeding in general anyway between 
> now and the lenny release. You should not look at this in isolation, but 
> as part of all changes likely to happen between now and lenny.

partman is where I do think it might be very difficult to keep it
compatible since some changes are too complex and difficult to
simulate previous behaviour.

Basically, user-setup is a very simple case and we might keep some
code on its postinst to handle with previous templates and warning the
user printing something at syslog but I agree that full compatibility
is difficult to get.

But I'm chaning my mind and I currently agree with you that the effort
will be too big to support it and supporting it partially won't be a
big win (even worse, it'll be a bit confusing that some works and
others fail) and then I agree we ought to document them and not
provide any backward compatibility layer.

        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
 E-mail: otavio@debian.org      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."

Reply to: