Le Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 02:17:44PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho écrivait: > On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 12:29:29AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > why don't we follow the Perl team's lead > > I most definitely agree with your plan.
I also agree that there's no perfect solution and that we should just do it even if partial upgrade is broken for users of unmaintained documentation viewers (we know that apache can cope with it, other viewer may too). But I'm convinced that you won't be able to update all the packages for potato. It's a pain to manage a list of "packages to update" and to tell the maintainers again and again to update their packages ... even with NMU there will be package you won't be allowed to NMU and that will not be updated ... Nevertheless I think that packages well maintained will be updated in time and that 70% of packages will use /usr/share/doc ... for the perl upgrade that's approximately the ratio I had : 250 packages had to be updated, 185 of them have been updated by their maintainers in time, the 65 left have been NMUed or updated later. Cheers, -- Hertzog Raphaël >> 0C4CABF1 >> http://prope.insa-lyon.fr/~rhertzog/
