On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 03:42:20AM +0200, Guillaume Rousse wrote: > It doesn't infirms my initial point: > - backward compatibility has a cost
Yes the time of doing it. If I'm a contributor and I want to allow backwards compatability that's my decision of how to use my time. I don't see how you have any right to tell me I can't spend time to do that. > - having just some packages supporting it by packager choice makes no sense Sure it does, or nobody would be doing it. > I'd be personaly in favor of ensuring backward compatibility with current > stable release, as it would reduce a bit the current release/forget mdk > strategy effect, but as a global policy issue, and provided it could be done > otherwise as introducing conditional macros everywhere in all spec files. I think this would be a big headache to enforce globally... And would open the list for bug reports for packages not building on the current release. Given the opinions about that I don't think you'll see that happen. > Just releasing an updated rpm package for stable release with missing macros > for instance. You mean like this: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mandrake-security-announce&m=102565725314514&w=2 -- Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://ben.reser.org "What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on I can no longer believe you." -- Nietzsche
