[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: 2.0.36 in slink, so isdnutils should go in as well!

On Wed, Jan 06, 1999 at 11:29:50AM +0100, Paul Slootman wrote:
> I've discovered that 2.0.36 has quietly gone into slink (I say quietly,
> as there was a lot of discussion whether it should go in, and there was
> no announce "OK, it's going in").
> Anyway, this means that isdnutils _must_ also be upgraded. I've
> contemplated making an isdnutils3 package that could go next to the
> existing version, but I don't think that direction is where we want
> to go (I hate packages suddenly changing names, which also means it's
> hard to reuse the old name; besides, the old package is based on a
> source almost 2 years old now). 
> So, I'll upload a new version of isdnutils to go into "frozen unstable"
> this week, unless there are heavy protests, in which case I also want
> to hear suggestions how to go about this without putting isdnutils-3.0
> into frozen...  Protests without any constructive comments will be
> cheerfully ignored ;-)

I protest. I feel my reasons are obvious and don't need to explain
them. If you don't see why its bad then you are obviously stupid, of 
questionable parentage, and you smell. (j/k)

Ok...to be serious for a second (but only for a second...I refuse to be for
longer than that). I know next to nothing about ISDN so...
does the old version (currently in slink) not work with 2.0.36? (I assume
that is the case)

Does the NEW version not work with older kernels? (that is important...
hell I ran kernel 2.0.29 well after I started using hamm...I had
reasons for not upgrading).

If it works both ways then I don't see a problem (tho it isn't my decision
either) but if it ONLY works with the newer kernel then I must "protest"
(not that it effects me...I run kernel 2.1.131 and have no ISDN anyway)
but forcing people to upgrade their kernel...and making this change this
late in the freeze...well I don't like that idea.

However...if that is the case then maybe having them coexist side by side
isn't a bad idea. But...thats all just IMHO anyway. I obviously don't 
understand the situation (if I did I wouldn't need to ask for the details)

/* -- Stephen Carpenter <sjc@delphi.com> --- <sjc@debian.org>------------ */
"We do everything by custom, even belive by it; our very
axioms, let us boast of free-thinking as we may, are oftenest
simply such beliefs as we have never questioned"
                -- Thomas Carlyle

Reply to: