Re: Silently breaking on upgrade
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:23:26AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> That's what I'd have thought, but I've run across a package which does
> seem to do this, and the maintainer seems to consider it an acceptable
> situation. Before trying to argue too much about that, I wanted to
> confirm that it was in fact 'officially' considered unacceptable. (In
> fact I'd prefer to exhaust reasonable means of resolving the problem
> first, if at all possible - I don't like getting into arguments.)
Perhaps if you were to point at the specific example it might be clearer
what's going on here?
Reply to: