On 8 February 2010 16:17, Morten Kjeldgaard <m...@bioxray.dk> wrote: > I've been running 2.0.2 on my hardy server for a while, no problems > detected. I've attached a debdiff, default format is set to pack-0.92 > which is the default for hardy, please review.
I have some real qualms about changing the default format in the packaging, so I'm glad you mentioned that you're doing it. Pros: - makes it a less bumpy change for people going from 1.3 to 2.0.2; in particular there is less risk that machines running hardy-backports will create repositories that can't be read by machines on non-updated hardy Cons: - all other things being equal it's icky to have two things called version x that behave differently - in particular there is an increased support version through bzr 2.0.2 being different on hardy-backports to hardy installed from the ppa, or on karmic, or installed from source - ... and the same burden for organizations using 2.0 on hardy and say win32 - 'bzr selftest' will probably fail because some tests make assumptions about the default format - if you haven't run selftest, we don't know if anything is actually substantively broken (as opposed to an oversensitive test); there shouldn't be anything but it kind of goes against the idea of backports being safe So on the whole I would suggest you don't change this. -- Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/> -- Please backport bzr 2.0.2 from karmic-updates https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/302987 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
