Re: The fate of libc5
>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Armstrong <email@example.com> writes:
Ben> On 11 Jul 2000, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
Ben> because it makes for more things that can break.
Very good point...
Ben> I think you greatly underestimate how much effort is
Maybe so, but maybe not... I have tried to make the transition from
Roxen1 to Roxen2 as smooth as possible, without breaking things. But
since Idonex (author/owner of Roxen) don't support it 100%, neither
can I (unless I do some SERIOUS coding in pike, which is a language
I don't fully master).
So I took a different route, I made them installable side by side...
That's also a way of having 'backward compability' (Al bight by cheating :)
Ben> What does this have to do with Debian? Well, in a
Ben> round-about way I am saying that users will always drag their
Ben> heels about upgrading, and it really is not in their best
Ben> interests to do so.
True, and I have been there myself. But I have the VERY firm belief that
you NEVER, EVER mess with a working (production) system! NEVER!
It _WILL_ give you problem. But yes, one day you absolutely have to, because
the feature you have been waiting for/begging for FINNALY arrived...
Ben> But in the end, users are better served with reasonably
Ben> up-to-date software
Couldn't agree with you more on this...
Ben> At some point you must draw the line, for your
Ben> developers' sake, and for your users' sake.
This was my main key point about Commodore and the Amiga... I _LOVED_
(strangely enough, considering my previous statement perhaps :) that
they basicly said 'Do it our way, or it will (!!) break when we
release new OS versions'... I think that showed guts, and quite big
balls (pardon the expression). But it's one thing to say 'backward
compability is not our main concern' from the start and another to say
(and show!) that 'backward compability is a big concern for us'... The
last is what we have said (maybe not officially, but we have sure
SHOWN that this is the case) from the beginning.
This is one of the big strength in Debian, and I understand fully
that maybe we must draw the line somewhere, I just don't want it to be
decided out of the wrong reason. I'm just not convinced that we really
have that overhead that's discussed. Maybe if we decided to be
backward compatible NOW (without all that code base), then I'd just say
'forget it', but now... With all that existing (working?) code, I'd
say 'be cool, think twice'...
Nitpicking, yes, but that's me :)
But maybe you got the solution there... Upgrade in steps... That's
backward compability to... The cheat solution, but it works :)
I keep quiet about that, I'm convinced (i think :) that 'upgradability
in steps' _might_ be the correct way.
jihad CIA Marxist Kennedy NORAD cryptographic FBI attack colonel
Mossad ammunition [Hello to all my fans in domestic surveillance] Uzi
fissionable SEAL Team 6