Re: Package maintainer script policy.
Guy Maor <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> No, Raul, that's the whole point. When you're upgrading libc5->libc6,
> /bin/sh really does stop working until this postinst runs.
That's what comes from trying to do too much in one upgrade.
We should have had an intermediate release point where we had a
libreadline2 that provided both /lib and /lib/libc5-compat instances of
So in that sense, you're right: given that we've already made that
mistake there's no hope for it at this point. [This makes our upgrade
path quite a bit less than robust.]
However, even with our decision to go from libc5-only to libc6-only in
one release we could have avoided breaking bash by having the libc5-compat
version of libreadline be named differently, and having an empty package
with the old name which pre-depended on the package with the new name.]
But, I wasn't anticipating that a wishlist bug would result in a change
to hamm's package line-up. I mean, hamm has already been released, so
it's not changing. And I don't think we're should toss libc5-compat
in slink. We can still build it just fine, and there's plenty of
non-debian pieces of software around that still use libc5.
So: none of this sounds like a valid reason not to file a wishlist bug
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org