On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 12:54:56PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > 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? > > Surely the release manager's decision on the matter when properly > > publisized is information enough? > Do you think having this in policy may be harmful? If so, why? > We supported upgrades that skip releases in the past, and now we do > not (I suppose the fact that our release cycles are much longer have > something to do with this). Isn't this the kind of thing that we > usually document in policy? IMHO, not really, no; I think this is more like "this is the set of architectures that your package must not regress on" than it is like "these are the arguments that your maintainer scripts must support". I.e., this is a temporal release team recommendation owing to the size of our deltas between releases right now, not a permanent policy that should be enshrined in the Policy document. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature