Re: rmail, m-t-a, and uucp

[Adam Heath <doogie@debian.org>]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Branden Robinson wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 10:45:54PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 05:46:38PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * 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.)
> >
> > Is it really a policy change ? As far as I know all major packages
> > splits had followed the above rule, and policy doesn't seem to document
> > upgrade requirement between stable releases at all.
>
> It has been said that the Policy Manual is supposed to document existing
> practice...

Then why does it talk about Enhances?