[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Whether tis nobler to break backwards compat or upstream compat...



On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 19:00 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 12:00 -0400, Toshio wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 08:18 -0700, Shahms King wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 11:14 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > > Shahms King (shahms shahms com) said: 
> > > > > One of the packages I maintain in Extras (python-quixote) just released
> > > > > the next stable version (2.0).  This version is not (entirely) backwards
> > > > > compatible with the current 1.2 version and is not parallel installable.
> > > > 
> > I think tradition has been to package (2.0) as python-quixote and if
> > someone needed python-quixote-1.x to make a python-quixote1 package
> This is only possible if both packages can be installed in parallel or
> if both packages are strictly orthogonal alternatives.
> 
> Otherwise adding a "backward legacy" package is not possible.
> 
True.  What I didn't quote was Shahms's question as to whether he (as
packager) should make the python-quixote 2.x package parallel
installable with version 1.x.  Rather than spend time doing that, it
seemed to me that the new version should be installed as is and if
there's a need for a 1.x, do the packaging work there to make it
parallel install.

-Toshio
                                                                 GA->ME 1999

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]