Re: bo-updates packages
On 05-Dec-1997 02:11:22, Paul Seelig <email@example.com.Uni-Mainz.de> wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Steve Greenland) writes:
> > And who is going to check and make sure that all the other packages in
> > bo that use perl, bash and the "few other important goodies" still
> > work the new versions? That's what a "stable" version is all about...
> Probably not you.
True enough :-)
> But anyway who can guarantee that a mixed system
> consisting of a mere hodge podge of bo and hamm behaves ok either?
Nobody, but I don't *expect* it to, either. I guess my theory on this
is that if the change is "small enough" to expect no problems (i.e.
perl-5.003 -> perl-5.004 (or whatever the actual number are)), then
is it *really* necessary to provide the upgrade? The people who care
most about being on the leading edge of releases can mess around with
hamm or build their own. There's a basic contradiction between "stable"
and "newest". It seems to me that that somehow by putting new releases
of packages under the tree named "stable" (logically, not necessarily
physically), that they magically *become* stable.
> Guess why i proposed to name a directory with libc5 compiled hamm
> packages "bo-unstable"?
Sorry, didn't see that: the Subject line says "bo-updates", which
would make most people leap for their ftp program, without much
thought about what they are getting.
If people must do this, it seems to me the correct name is not
'bo-<anything>', but 'hamm-libc5'.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .