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

[David Kastrup]

Jonas Hahnfeld <address@hidden> writes:

> 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".

Is there a reason we should not be catering well to either?

-- 
David Kastrup