On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 10:26:04AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: > Our current problem with releasing 2.0 is that we took on goals that were > too complex for a simple release cycle. It was necessary in this case, but > we should work harder in the future at keeping a more narrow focus on > short term goals when working on a release. I'm not so sure. It would have been possible to focus primarily on libc6 but still leave room for libc5, which was the big transition. I think not every package need be FHS for 2.1 though, as long as critical ones are.
Description: PGP signature