Re: Accepted emacs 1:26.1+1-3.2 (source amd64 all) into unstable, unstable
- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 15:24:47 -0600
- From: Rob Browning <rlb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Accepted emacs 1:26.1+1-3.2 (source amd64 all) into unstable, unstable
Holger Levsen <holger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 02:51:45PM +0100, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
>> Holger Levsen <holger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > I'm really not sure this is a sensible approach. Usually we try to get
>> > rid off transitional packages, not to add new ones???!
>> ... s.t. we can finally drop the transitional packages that were
>> introduced in buster for buster +1
> as long as that happens... and I guess it also doesnt matter whether we
> have 200 or 203 transitional packages in Buster after all
For what it's worth, while I agree that we don't really "have to"
provide the older transition packages for the ancient versions, I also
agree that they're fairly trivial, and if they're not otherwise trouble,
I think Andreas' plan seems sound.
i.e. it may help some people avoid weird breakage, doesn't cost us much,
and is something we can drop in the not too distant future if/when we
like -- and after we do, I suspect we'll be a lot less likely to see
random bugs filed about strange breakages caused by old vestigial
packages, and we can be a lot more confident when we decide we want to
pursue the code cleanups Andreas has mentioned.
Thanks for the help.
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A
GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4