Jyri Virkki said this cool thing on 8/27/07 18:29: > Joe McCabe wrote: >> I think we should allow one minor revision back along with "tip" >> minor version cohabitation (i.e. 2.2.x & 2.4.x), but with a clear >> termination point on the older version. Some kind of policy like: > > Matt Ingenthron wrote: >> What I was thinking of is state a "minimum" of xx months. The actual >> support lifecycle to be determined based on both demand from customers >> and what's feasible with respect to keeping in synch with the upstream. > > Note that the exact details of how many concurrent versions to > actively maintain (strictly 1 or a dozen or any n) and for how long > each is a really business decision of the distribution (Sun for > Solaris), not something we, here, need to figure out. > > The engineering discussion here is whether the layout should permit > that, keeping in mind complexity isn't free.
And strictly from that point of view I think the file layout should accommodate multiple versions installed at the same time.
