Re: Advice on how best to handle non-backwards compatibility
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 12:44:09PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:18AM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> > I'm of the philosophy that a Debian package of upstream software should
> > reasonably accurately represent what you'd get if you nipped off and grabbed
> > the source tarball yourself and built it. For that reason, I'm reluctant to
> > bolt on part of lprngtool 1.1.1 onto lprngtool 1.3.2, but that is just my
> > personal philosophy towards packaging, to avoid breakage, it may workout
> > better to do as you've suggested.
>
> FWIW, I disagree; providing continuity of functionality across upgrades
> is one of the most important value-adds we offer over upstream tarballs.
Yeah that's fair enough. I don't have a problem with that. I guess it just
means that a Debian package of upstream software isn't necessarily
indicative of how the upstream software walks and talks both a) in the wild
and b) on another Linux distribution (point (b) being one of my pet hates of
distributions like Red Hat Linux and both points yielding varying degrees of
the gotcha factor for users migrating to or from Debian)
Andrew
Reply to: