On Sunday 17 July 2005 23.28, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 10353 March 1977, Santiago Vila wrote: > >> we need to remove > >> from the archive all the Woody-to-Sarge transition dummy packages. > > > > No, that's not true, we don't *need* to remove woody-to-sarge dummy > > packages, as they are also woody-to-etch dummy packages. > > We do not support that. No. So yes, woody->sarge packages should be > removed, there is no reason to keep them. Upgrades from woody go via > sarge and then to etch. Support and test woody -> etch upgrades? No. Knowingly (and on purpose) break woody -> etch upgrades where keeping the support is as cheap as keeping a simple arch:all dummy package? I vote no. (Based on a recollection that potato -> sarge transitions worked reasonably, with a little hand holding, quite a long time into sarge's testing cycle.) No, I don't think dummy packages should be kept around forever, traces of potato->etch support, IMHO, is certainly not anything worth to keep. cheers -- vbi -- this email is protected by a digital signature: http://fortytwo.ch/gpg
Attachment:
pgpA2ODFeuIEd.pgp
Description: PGP signature