Re: Packages NOT removed from frozen
On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 03:53:13PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 11:59:41AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >
> > > If we drop perl-5.004, is there a good reason why we do need to rename
> > > an essential package? (from perl-base to perl-5.005-base).
> > >
> > > I understand this was made to be able to install several releases of
> > > perl at the same time, but: Is this really worthy? Why do we need several
> > > releases of perl? The latest and the greatest should work with every app.
> >
> > It will make the next upgrade easier than this last one. So when 5.006
> > comes out, we wont have to rengineer the whole package setup again.
>
> But we don't need 5.004 and 5.005 in the system at the same time in potato.
> If this is not needed for the 5.004 to 5.005 transition, why is it going
> to be needed for the 5.005 to 5.006 transition?
>
> Do we ever plan to release a distribution having a
> perl-in-the-middle-of-an-unfinished-transition?
s/upgrade/transition/
By this I mean that it is needed the same way libraries are needed for
transition. So we don't dump in 5.006, and then make all the 5.005
dependant things broken until they are recompiled. No, I don't think it is
needed for releases, but mid-release transitions are important.
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bmc@visi.net '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: