Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:21 AM, Bryn M. Reeves <bmr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I guess it depends how much we care about being close to upstream for this.
If it's worth the effort to move these to libexec, then perhaps putting
compatibility symlinks in place for a couple of releases (with a clear
relnote that they will be removed in a future release and scripts need
updating) could be a way to handle the transition?
Adding symlinks does nothing to help, it just delays the pain because
people won't read the release notes or won't bother to fix their
scripts until the symlinks disappear. Fixing the scripts is trivial,
and backwards compatible to boot.
No, but having an entry in the release notes for a release or two gives
something more concrete to point at and say "I told you so" than an
announcement on the fedora-devel lists which are not read by most users
(yes, I know that this was announced three years ago upstream, but the
same comment regarding users not reading things applies).
Since we carried the package with non-upstream default paths for these
files for some time, I think we (Fedora) have some responsibility to
clearly tell our users that we are now bringing things back into line
with upstream.
I don't have any issue either way, my scripts have long used the new
conventions but I think this would be helpful to at least some.
Regards,
Bryn.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
