Re: "goals" for slink: FHS
Hi,
>>"Bill" == Bill Mitchell <debian@pny-fmail.webquest.com> writes:
Bill> On 29 Jul 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I would not like to see this ;-). This breaks our promise of
>> incremental upgrades. We can come up with a technical solution that
>> allows for a hybrid Hamm/Slink machine, and we should not take the
>> lazy way out.
Bill> Did I miss something? What has been promised regarding incremental
Bill> upgrades which is broken by this?
You answer your own question below.
Bill> What is a `hybrid Hamm/Slink machine'? Is it a hamm machine
Bill> running some random packages taken from slink? If so, have we
Bill> promised to support such running of slink packages in a hamm
Bill> environment?
The project leader sent a mail message afew weeks ago stating
this was a requirement for future releases; that people running
stable be able to run odd packages from unstable. For the record, I
whole heartedly support his viewpoint.
This also makes for less chaos at regular upgrades, since the
upgrade is likely to be smoother if there is not major release
boundary incompatibilities.
This is especially true if a little care can get us an upgrade
path that does not, in fact, involve gratuitous release boundary
incompatibilities.
manoj
avoid incompatibilities where you can
--
"I can handle reality in small doses, but as a lifestyle it's much
too confining." Lilly Tomlin
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, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: