Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:27:10AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Well, here's one middle ground:
> >
> > The Debian system, ie the main section the current stable release,
> > is modified by making point releases and major releases. If we want
> > to make it comply with the new social contract we need to modify it,
> > and the way to do that is by making either a point release or a major
> > release -- and functional changes rather than security updates are done
> > by making a major update. Changing the Debian system to conform with
> > the new social contract immediately isn't possible
>
> Would you think similarly if the Social Contract hadn't changed, but we had
> discovered freeness problems in woody? (They exist.) That these, as
> functional changes, should wait for a major update?
It's much easier and less invasive to remove individual packages from
woody (which happens) than it is to, for example, remove all GFDLed
documentation or reorganize our kernels within a stable release ... Even
removing packages causes complaints, but it more or less fits within the
practicalities of how our stable releases work.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: