Bryn M. Reeves <bmr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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). It has been announced in git's release notes for more than two years now! > Since we carried the package with non-upstream default paths for these > files for some time, I don't think so. > I think we (Fedora) have some responsibility to > clearly tell our users that we are now bringing things back into line > with upstream. This is bringing stuff in line with upstream. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile 2340000 Fax: +56 32 2797513 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
