Re: backwards compatibility was Re: Uploaded kernel-package 3.61
Hi,
On firther reflection, I have made my decision. The links are
staying in for the time being. I'll make the maintainer scripts less
insisten about the links, and stop registering them in
/usr/src/.linux-versions. In a future release, mayybe 2.1, the
symlinks shall vanish.
I'll consider proposals to the contrary, if they address the
known problems already raised in the mailing lists (both devel
and policy)
>>"Remco" == Remco Blaakmeer <remco@Cal011205.student.utwente.nl> writes:
>> Will people share the flack with me when people upgrade kernels
>> without first upgrading libc6-dev, and having compilation break for
>> them? Also, having trouble when they try to remove old kernels?
>> Cause if you remove the symlinks now, old kernel image postrm shall
>> bomb out.
Remco> It shouldn't bomb out, of course. If somebody has a directory
Remco> (not a symlink) /usr/src/linux and it contains a kernel tree,
Remco> what happens when the postrm is run?
It shall bomb out ;-)
>> If indeed it is the consensus to dictate such (IMHO unnecessary)
>> breakage, far be it for me to stand in the way.
I take that back.
Remco> I think if the "Good Thing To Do" has the consequence that we
Remco> break the system for people who follow hamm, it should be
Remco> done.
IMHO the good thing to do is leave teh symlinks where they
are. Only people who violate policy shall have problems. But, mine is
a minority view on this; people would rather let users break policy
and standards based on the principle that users know best. (haven't
ever manned a support desk, I say).
Remco> They are supposed to expect that once in a while, that's
Remco> why it's called unstable.
Only if it is impossible to prevent that.
Remco> A system that is upgraded from one stable release to another
Remco> shouldn't break, of course.
Then you need the symlinks.
>> However, I feel this is a quality of implementation issue. I think
>> the links should be phased out.
Remco> Yes, the links are quite dangerous. I think it is consensus
Remco> that they shouldn't exist in a stable Debian 2.0, but I can
Remco> also imagine that trying to remove them may break a lot.
I did not mean that. I have just given in to demands I remove
the links (I still think it is pandering to those who would violate
the FFSTND and the FHS). It is not a consensus anyway, there were a
minority who objected. (And at times mere majority ain't enough ;-)
>> 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.
manoj
--
But you have to allow a little for the desire to evangelize when you
think you have good news. --Larry Wall in
<1992Aug26.184221.29627@netlabs.com>
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 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: