Hi,
>>"Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcus> You're correct. The old prerm script is called before an
Marcus> update. This makes my analysis wrong indeed. The prerm
Marcus> scripts can go after the transition. I apologize for giving
Marcus> this wrong information. However, the fact that it took
Marcus> literally weeks for someone to correct me shows that only few
Marcus> people cared to think the proposal through completely, if
Marcus> anybody at all.
I just can't let that pass. The reason no one corrected you is
that you, and a few others, shot down the proposal, and there was no
point flogging a dead horse. I admit that I left this process in
disgust then, since people were more interested in power plays,
apparently, than in discussing a solution.
Marcus> Correct. I would like to see the proposal revived, with the
Wold it not have been better to talk first, and shoot
afterwards? At the moment, there is no provision for reviving
proposals that have been killed by formal objections.
I am not sure it would be wise in the long term to create such
a provision anyway.
Marcus> correct script snippets included, and a correct and complete
Marcus> analysis of what happens during upgrades (this is almost done
Marcus> already), downgrades(!), partial upgrades (also almost done),
Marcus> skipping of version numbers (this one is trivial) etc.
Marcus> If this is done, I will still not support the proposal
Marcus> (because I still think the cost is too high), but I will
Marcus> retract my objection. A precondition for this is that I am
Marcus> convinced by the proposal that all important cases are well
Marcus> covered.
Marcus> As there were a lot of supporters of the original proposal, I
Marcus> would be surprised if nobody steps up to make this work and
Marcus> creates example packages which use the script for some
Marcus> testing.
manoj
--
Why are there always boycotts? Shouldn't there be girlcotts too?
argon on #Linux
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
