On Tue, 5 Aug 2008, Jeff Johnson wrote: > On Aug 5, 2008, at 6:06 PM, Dag Wieers wrote: >> On Tue, 5 Aug 2008, Ralph Angenendt wrote: >> >> > Les Mikesell wrote: >> > > It doesn't matter who does it or where - making something that is not >> > > inherently backwards compatible is bound to cause pain. >> > >> > As does making something which has to be backwards compatible all the >> > time. >> >> Exactly, both comments conjured a smile on my face :) >> > > While I'm happy to see a smile on yer face, and backward compatibility > is incredibly important (you are one of the few who understands that > importance), > > *BUT* > > I'm forced to point out that the engineering changes that led to the creation > of perl-devel > packaging are quite sound. The perl package always was a messy mixture of > modules > and other "stuff", pretending otherwise is foolish. > > One needs to balance fixes against compatibility on a case by case > basis. No one rule, or one policy, can be generally applied. You are misreading the smile ! But I feel no urge to explain, maybe it will come up next year in a pub in Brussels ;-) -- -- dag wieers, dag at centos.org, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]