On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 09:21:20AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote: > On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 10:27:22AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > The upgrade path from oldstable to stable+1 is to upgrade to stable first. > > There is no justification to place unnecessary workload on package > > maintainers just to save users from taking this step. > Problem is, that users *will* do stuff like this, and supporting it is > easy if each upgrade step can parse the output from the previous step. > I've seen this topic on IRC quite often, and the consensus was that it > should be supported if at all possible. Um, consensus on IRC isn't worth a hill of beans. If it's not in Policy, you have NO reason to expect this to work, and no claim against a package maintainer when it doesn't. For my part, I greedily strip legacy code out of my maintainer scripts when a stable release is finalized -- if you think leaving this stuff around doesn't make maintenance more difficult, I have some scripts to show you... :) Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgp1uKEWnr6Wm.pgp
Description: PGP signature