Re: Removal of transitional dummy packages
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 10:51:23AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > On 7/17/05, Joerg Jaspert <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > As we only support upgrades to the next release and not any other its
> > > very clear to remove them from the archive.
> > Does 'not supporting' equal 'requiring it to fail'?
> It equals "we have no expectation whatsoever that upgrades from woody to
> etch will work for *anyone*, so users are much better off if we deliver this
> message to them consistently instead of hinting with a couple of remaining
> transition packages here and there that it might work". We know from
> experience with sarge that we're already spread very thin where upgrade
> support is concerned, so it's important that we neither overpromise nor let
> ourselves be distracted by things that won't actually be of benefit to
> In this context, woody->sarge transition packages are just one form of
> useless cruft that we should strive to get rid of before the etch release.
> They're not the biggest source of cruft, but on the other hand they are
> (IMHO) one of the sources for which the proper course of action is clearest.
In such case, could we please codify that in policy?