Hi, On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 04:54:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Then for woody+1 we let people drop the scripts whenever they feel > like. Crufty symlinks get removed when everyone updates to a new > base-files that rm's symlinks from within /usr/doc in its postinst on > upgrade, or something similar.
So all new packages will have to depend on this particular version of base-files or newer, or there is still no guarantee that the link gets removed. > Anyway, I'm quoting Marcus Brinkmann from > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > But the real expense is elsewhere. I wonder why this hasn't come up before, > > but here it is: > > [...] > > 2. The prerm/postrm script must never go again, because we handle smooth > > upgrades even if you jump a version number. Otherwise, you will end up with > > a crufty symlink. > > [...] > > ~2000 new prerm/postrm scripts that must never go, even after the > > transition period. > > So this is definitely incorrect, yes? No it is not. Either the prerm/postrm script, or the dependency on a special version of base-files. It seems that the supporters of Manojs proposal do care enough about backwards-compatibility to make several hundreds of developers do this additional amount of work, but not enough to make the solution fail-proof. This is at least half-baken, and the benefit is doubtful to me. As I said, I think we should spend this collected amount of time and energy on really important compatibility issues. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org master.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
