Re: The fate of libc5
On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 03:57:15AM +1000, Edward C. Lang wrote:
> >>>>> "BC" == Ben Collins <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> BC> Anyone else agree, or can give a real reason why this shouldn't
> BC> be the case?
> <BenC> I'm waiting for someone to proclaim me a witch that needs killing
> You're a witch! And you need burning! So ha!
> (Seriously, I think what you're suggesting is a good idea. Just how long
> are we going to be backwards compatible to every other release? The
> distribution is growing fast enough as it is, without the extra legacy
Wow, how quickly someone touched on my underlying goal :)
Seperate from the libc5 issue (so if ppl wish to hash it out in discussion
on the list, change the subject), I think we should make it policy that we
only support backward compatibility, and thus upgrading, from two major
releases backward. IOW and for example, we should only support upgrading
to woody from slink and potato.
It get's very difficult after that 2 major release mark to guarantee
upgradability across the whole distribution anyway. Packages that wish,
can still support further, but we should only force (as in bug reports)
two major releases.
That would remove half of the crazy and silly install script code I have
now for login and passwd, which dates back to 0.9x releases.
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` email@example.com -- firstname.lastname@example.org -- email@example.com '