On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 11:57:47AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 11:24:22AM +0100, Neil McGovern wrote: > > > We want to avoid packages shipping their own versions of libraries, > > as then if a security problem or major bug is discovered in that > > library, we have lots of packages to update, and there's no garuntee > > we'll even know which packages it affects. > > I don't know if it can always be avoided. [snip lots of good examples where this is unavoidable] > > I would go for strongly discouraging the practice, but I think that > flat-out forbidding it might be excessive at this point.
Hence this being "should not", rather than "must not". We're aware
that it's not alwars possible, and you phrased it wonderfully. We want
to strongly discourage it, rather than flat-out forbidding it :)
Cheers,
Neil
--
<Tincho> 'Maybe you can try to find a nice hotel by shouting in the Mexico DF
streets "where could a gringo find a decent hotel in this dirty third
world lame excuse for a country?". I'm sure the people will rush to help
you, as we south americans love to be called third world in a demeaning
way.'
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
