Re: rmail, m-t-a, and uucp
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-policy@lists.debian.org
- Cc: Peter Palfrader <weasel@debian.org>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>, sendmail@packages.debian.org
- Subject: Re: rmail, m-t-a, and uucp
- From: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>
- Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 17:46:38 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20040328154638.GE25294@mails.so.argh.org>
- Mail-followup-to: Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-policy@lists.debian.org, Peter Palfrader <weasel@debian.org>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>, sendmail@packages.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20040328152452.GA12359@marvin.sbg.palfrader.org>
- References: <[🔎] 20040325071939.GA29926@marvin.sbg.palfrader.org> <[🔎] 20040325101845.GS16746@fs.tum.de> <[🔎] 20040328152452.GA12359@marvin.sbg.palfrader.org>
* Peter Palfrader (weasel@debian.org) [040328 17:40]:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > If something is split off a package, the package has to depend on the
> > new package until after the next stable release. This is the only way to
> > prevent breakages on upgrades, (e.g. with the Debian 3.0 uucp package
> > and the Debian 3.1 sendmail package).
> I think this is a good idea. Can we add this to the policy?
Yes, I think we should. (And I consider this to be a policy-change
that we can do before release of sarge, w/o breaking too many
packages.)
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Reply to: