Re: the Great X Reorganization, package splits, and renaming
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Avery Pennarun wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 1999 at 02:18:56PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > > You have yet to explain what will BREAK if people continue to use the old
> > > font packages. Not in the future, RIGHT NOW.
> >
> > Oh, you have yet to explain why a clock bomb is *not* a bad thing.
> > "Surely, it will exploit, but not now" ;-)
>
> But it won't. I agree with Branden on this point. What's the problem,
> other than that you think someday it will explode? I think it won't. Who
> wins?
Maybe I didn't explain well:
Can you *guarantee* that the package now called xfonts-base will *always*
have the same functionality and will always be *identical* to the one
called xfntbase in hamm?
Can you *guarantee* that the package now called xlib6g-static will
*always* have the same functionality and will always be *identical* to the
one called xslibg in hamm?
I don't think you can, unless you have a crystal ball.
> My guess is that by the time potato is released, some kind soul will have
> implemented package renaming in dpkg.
But then it could be too late. Sorry but this is vaporware.
It is not wise at all to rely on features that have not been implemented
yet. As Joseph Carter says: "Show me the code or get out of my way".
BTW: I see a contradiction here... If you and Branden are so sure that
package ranaming will be implemented in dpkg for potato, why does not
Branden just postpone all the package renamings to potato to do it the
right way?
Frankly, I'm very suprised how low do you value the userfriendliness of
the system, the smoothness of the upgrades and the overall quality of
Debian. I can't accept "I create a problem today and will fix it
tomorrow" or worse "problem? what's the problem?".
Upgrading a system from hamm to slink should make the system to be in the
same state as if slink had been installed from scratch.
Otherwise, Debian will become just a W95 clone very soon (have you ever
asked yourself why people reinstall W95 so often?).
--
"771ffa7eca98abefb0b0a12f36d4dc17" (a truly random sig)
Reply to: