Re: The point (BC breakage)

On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 06:07, Greg Beaver wrote: > Daniel Khan wrote: > > >(((I would still prefer a more radical change which abstracts the package > >directory from the userland))) > > > I agree this would be a great thing. The main balancing act is how do > you implement this without requiring every package to be rewritten? If > someone could go back two or three years in time and talk to Stig and > also talk to the implementers of language-level inclusion, I think a > much better solution could have been reached. However, there is hope > for PEAR 2.0, no? The problem will then be in separating PEAR 1.x stuff > from PEAR 2.x stuff, something I'd like to think about later :). I'm a wee bit late joining this discussion, so I apologise if I cover ground that has already been either agreed or dismissed. Would it be possible to implement (on the server side) and Debian-like policy of offering unstable, testing and stable versions of a particular package. By default, the packages should use stable versions and a user must specifically alter their configuration to install the latest versions (e.g. testing or unstable). When packages get to the point where interdependence allows for a certain package to be moved to stable, then let it be so. Before that, we -- as a community -- should ensure a package does not break until it absolutely must do, and then if it does, that all packages that rely on it are also upgraded to use the new API. It's a big job, but if you look at the regard in which the Debian team are held, I think you'll agree that it can only be a good thing. Regards, David