On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 01:35:09AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 09:15:04PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 07, 2004 at 06:28:32PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 12:17:42AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > > > > > > > Not all programs installed on people's systems are shipped by Debian. > > > > Plenty of people build programs locally, and if we can avoid breaking > > > > those when they upgrade their systems to newer versions of Debian then > > > > we should. > > > >... > > > > > > Good point. > > > > > > This leaves the question whether there's a solution that works for both > > > locally installed software and doesn't cause breakages in packages... > > > > That's the one we currently use. > > The current solution works well in many cases. > > But it's not optimal in all situations. It's fairly easy to prove that no solution is optimal in all cases (some of the cases have contradictory requirements), but the current one works for locally installed software and doesn't cause breakages in packages. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature