On Nov 23, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Issac Goldstand <[email protected]> wrote: > > Again, you're focusing on the packages, but not on configuration > changes, which I think is what Jeff was trying to point out to begin > with. I'm pretty sure that there's even a .spec file somewhere that the > project used to maintain, and possibly still does. > > The package upgrade is easy, but non-backwards-compatible changes, like > the historic ones between 1.3 and 2.0, and the recent ones between > 2.0/2.2 and 2.4 are the hard part.
So - that’s been my focus, if only because Jeff mentioned the idea of wanting to get a new user up-to-speed quickly with 2.4, and mentioned earlier the issues of running into pre-installed headers, etc. being a source of pain and spurious bug reports. I will *absolutely* agree with you about the configuration changes, as I’ve had folks working with me run head on into them. Perhaps a tool to scan an existing configuration (single file or directory structure) and flag potential problems is in order? Best, Victor -- Victor J. Orlikowski <> [email protected]
