On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 09:08:49PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: > On Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:47:35 -0600 Jamin Collins > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Couldn't they just package 4.x as exim4 and leave 3.x as is for > > those already using it? Then if someone installs 4.x, display > > several warnings about config file compatibility and such. > > Problem is a lot of people ignore those warnings. That's because most > of the time the warning is meaningless in that they warn people of a > config file change that could cause problems and in 99.9% of the time > it doesn't. It leads to the "yeah, yeah, whatever" syndrome.
Doesn't mean the warning couldn't/shouldn't be given. > Also since Exim is a base package a little more care has to go into it. Not so. "exim" is a base package. That doesn't mean that "exim4" would have to be a base package. It would just be another _optional_ package. > If it were an optional package sure, they could do that. However an upgrade > of a base package can cause serious problems if not handled properly. It need not be structured as an upgrade of a base package. -- Jamin W. Collins -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
