Re: The fate of libc5
On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 01:20:28AM +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 02:20:32PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > 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.
> But it would stop maknig sense if 3-month release cycle would suddenly happen.
I seriously doubt we will ever have a major release every 3 months. Let's
not get into that dicsussion right now. As it stands, we release major
revisions once a year, which is about the same as the kernel itself. We
cannot expect our own developers to keep access to systems that old (2-3
years), so it puts too much strain on us. However, it is safe to say that
if a user wants to make an upgrade across that great of a span, then they
can do it in steps (I doubt anyone would ever do this, but if they do, I
doubt they will need to do more than 2 dist-upgrades).
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` email@example.com -- firstname.lastname@example.org -- email@example.com '