On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 01:46:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 10:39:23PM -0500, Graham Wilson wrote: > > it just seems like upstream would want to support users who are > > transistioning from older versions of the software. i think a better > > policy, rather than something debian specific, would be for debian > > devels to work with upstream to provide something that can benefit > > everyone. > > [...] If you need to modify the upstream sources in order to build a > policy compliant package, then you should propose a nice fix to the > upstream developers which can be included there, so that you won't > have to modify the sources of the next upstream version.'' but policy doesnt mandate the support of updating user configuration, does it? > Also, compare with the Gnome 2 stuff at the moment: Gnome upstream are > *strongly* recommending we don't replace Gnome 1 by Gnome 2 even in > unstable until we've written some config upgrade scripts -- while they thats a big mess. > think such things are necessary for mass use of Gnome 2, they also > preferred to leave the authoring of them to the distros. Who writes > the code doesn't really matter, as long as it gets written. i agree. i think this solution is better than a debian specific way of doing things, such as a dotconf-upgrade. i also appreciate the work christian has done in trying to write some of these scripts. -- gram
Attachment:
pgpa5VFTNcxQJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature