Policy proposal for compatibility packages

[Andrew Farris]

Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 02:28:42PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
>> - Third party applications which still depend on the old interface (that
>> the maintainer is aware of specifically, not "something might use it
>> someday")
> 
> That seems to me to be a perfect reason. Please don't try to force
> packagers to do something without reason. If a packager wants to invest
> time to maintain a compat package, let him do.

It seems to me that a minimal good reason' policy will at least make sure the
packager really is maintaining the compat package, not just building it blindly
and pushing it to a next release just because it didn't cause problems or fail
to build.

If the packager is going to maintain something that has some use, then more
power to them.  If its just there because it can be then it shouldn't be.

-- 
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul at gmail.com> <ajfarris at gmail.com>
 gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
----                                                                       ----