On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 10:51:23AM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote: > On 7/17/05, Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As we only support upgrades to the next release and not any other its > > very clear to remove them from the archive.
> Does 'not supporting' equal 'requiring it to fail'? It equals "we have no expectation whatsoever that upgrades from woody to etch will work for *anyone*, so users are much better off if we deliver this message to them consistently instead of hinting with a couple of remaining transition packages here and there that it might work". We know from experience with sarge that we're already spread very thin where upgrade support is concerned, so it's important that we neither overpromise nor let ourselves be distracted by things that won't actually be of benefit to users. In this context, woody->sarge transition packages are just one form of useless cruft that we should strive to get rid of before the etch release. They're not the biggest source of cruft, but on the other hand they are (IMHO) one of the sources for which the proper course of action is clearest. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature