> > I think it would not be much effort, and you'll give the users the
> > choice of sticking to a release or not. So the question is, why not? The
> > only reason I see to not doing this is because of the diskspace this
> > "additional" packages need.
> > And if the releases are just there for easier installations, why do you
> > still keep older releases?
History ;)
More than History, there is still sometimes a downgrade issue because some
buggy package don't exist anymore in it's old version.
Don't misunderstand me, ArchLinux have a "step forward" philosophy, and old
packages should simply be dropped, but it must not constraint the users.
Maybe some package versions should be flagged. Then the repos can keep them one
year in an "archive" repository. It can be useful in two case :
- A user need to use a program NOW. He don't used this program since a month or
more and is stuck with a bug in a new version. He can't downgrade it quickly
because there isn't any old binary.
- It can also be used to check when a bug apears (I don't want to compile some
old packages to check if it worked in an earlier version).
___________________________________________________________________________
Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions !
Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des internautes sur
Yahoo! Questions/Réponses
http://fr.answers.yahoo.com_______________________________________________
arch mailing list
[email protected]
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
