Re: config.status has been broken by issue 5780 "Accept GUILE 2 without extra configure options"

[Jonas Hahnfeld]

Am Samstag, den 14.03.2020, 10:50 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Jonas Hahnfeld <
> address@hidden
> > writes:
> 
> > Am Freitag, den 13.03.2020, 23:09 -0600 schrieb Anthony Fok:
> > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 2:02 AM Jonas Hahnfeld <
> > > address@hidden
> > > 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > I'm still not convinced that we need compatibility code, but I'm happy
> > > > with anything that gets us to a release and is not technically wrong.
> > > 
> > > By the way, from a Debian package maintainer point of view, breaking
> > > backward compatibility is OK as long as it is documented, so if
> > > breaking backward compatibility makes the code cleaner, more correct,
> > > and/or easier to maintain for the future, I'd say "please break
> > > compatibility"!
> > 
> > I definitely think that's the case here.
> 
> Backward compatibility will always get retired eventually.  For the
> current decision the main target is not really distributions since those
> tend not to package unstable versions anyway.

Exactly my argument in the past. So who is the "main target" in your
opinion? I mostly remember the term "system integrators".

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