Re: debian 2.0
James Troup <J.J.Troup@scm.brad.ac.uk> wrote:
> I never said it was unstable and it isn't. But we haven't used it
> before and I don't care how stable it is, we should not and will not
> start recompiling core applications with a previously unused (*in
> Debian*) library, one month into a freeze. The decision to postpone
> PAM integration till 2.1 was made a long time ago (see the list
> archives).
You're saying we shouldn't re-make that decision now. I guess that's
fine.
You're saying that when the decisions was made ("a long time ago") it
was the right decision. I guess that's fine, too.
However, I'm surprised that so much time had passed without anyone
re-examining the decision.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: