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