On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 06:59:11PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > At worst, we'll be in this same position at the *beginning* of a > release cycle, and that alone has one advantage: it increases the > *chance* that we can get a sweeping change done before the next > release.
*shrug*. It's still only a chance, so our solution still has to be
sane in the event that woody *doesn't* make it to all symlinks. That,
coupled with the fact that I think if we make a decision to do something
for potato we'll have most packages recompiled within a few weeks,
means I don't really see any benefit to waiting.
Note the "I" in the above. This really seems just a matter of preference,
whether the payoff of possibly getting it all done at once is worth
waiting up to half a year before even starting.
> DELAYED DO-NOTHING (the Bad One)
Honestly, I don't even think this is that bad.
Anyway, I think the more important part of this discussion, or at
least the more controversial part, is whether symlinks/cronjobs/hacking
dpkg or whatever is even an acceptable measure. Which is why all
the formal objections irk me.
Not that I have a one track mind, or anything.
Cheers,
aj, who thinks he's about at the point where he doesn't have anything
more to say on this (hurray)
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
pgpnCYsPqGU4n.pgp
Description: PGP signature
