Re: backwards compatibility was Re: Uploaded kernel-package 3.61
On 19 Feb 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[snip]
> >> Opinions, people?
>
> Remco> Yes, I think I have one. But first, let me summarize the
> Remco> problem to make clear what we're talking about.
>
> [proposal to remove kernel-headers package in favour of a one
> time libc6 only package deleted]
>
> This has been discussed before. There are problems with the
> proposal, and the extra effort is not worth the negligible
> gain. Please look in the archives for arguments aganst the proposal.
(Sorry to jump in so late.)
I know that we decided last time that the current solution is sufficient.
We thought that having the `kernel headers FAQ' (is it package somewhere,
already?) will stop these discussions. At least, until now these
discussion did not stop.
However, since nearly every user (ok, perhaps only developers--but these
are a lot) will use libc6-dev and kernel-headers, wouldn't it be better to
choose the solution with the little extra work (that's the solution Remco
suggested--it has been suggested a few times already) if we can stop the
confusion here?
BTW, I still doubt that it would be that much extra work. AFAIK, the only
`problem' is that the libc6-dev maintainer and the kernel-headers
maintainer need to communicate before doing new upstream releases--but
having the maintainers of such important parts of the system staying in
contact with each other is probably a good thing anyways.
Thanks,
Chris
PS: I hope that this mail does not start the whole discussion again! :)
-- _,, Christian Schwarz
/ o \__ schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@schwarz-online.com,
! ___; schwarz@debian.org, schwarz@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de
\ /
\\\______/ ! PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
\ / http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/
-.-.,---,-,-..---,-,-.,----.-.-
"DIE ENTE BLEIBT DRAUSSEN!"
--
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: