Re: backwards compatibility was Re: Uploaded kernel-package 3.61
Hi,
>>"Juan" == Juan Cespedes <cespedes@debian.org> writes:
Juan> On Thu, Feb 19, 1998 at 12:15:01PM +0100, Christian Leutloff
Juan> wrote:
>> srivasta@debian.org writes:
>>
>> > Hence, now kernel-source-* packages compiled with this
>> kernel-package shall not provide any sort of kernel-headers. For
>> the sake of backwards compatibility, /usr/src/linux-$version
>> symlinks are still being provided (as people may upload newer
>> kernels while keeping an older libc6-dev around, which depends on
>> /usr/src/linux-2.0.32.
>>
>> The symlinks should go *now*
Juan> Agreed. Manoj, we will break many people's setup if we change
Juan> /usr/src/linux*. It's against policy to use them locally, but
Juan> many people don't know it and they will complain.
Juan> We won't need them at all if Dwarf releases the new libc6.
Will people share the flack with me when people upgrade
kernels without first upgrading libc6-dev, and having compilation
break for them? Also, having trouble when they try to remove old
kernels? Cause if you remove the symlinks now, old kernel image
postrm shall bomb out.
If indeed it is the consensus to dictate such (IMHO
unnecessary) breakage, far be it for me to stand in the way.
However, I feel this is a quality of implementation issue. I
think the links should be phased out.
Opinions, people?
manoj
Is there a QA manager? Should he/She be involved in this discussion?
--
He who has nothing of his own, before, after or in between,
possessionless and without attachment - that is what I call a
brahmin. 421
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: