On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 21:22 +0000, Jim
> But that should be an indication of why testing is necessary: a failed
> installation and a message of why it failed is infinitely better than a
> successful installation that breaks browsers.
And better than both would be a warning of some kind that informs of the
situation, but still allows the user to override the developer's
decision to prevent the installation of software he wants.
> Yesterday's Konqueror bug
> could be tomorrow's Firefox bug, and you might break Firefox for all
> users. If you had all package maintainers with that maverick mentality,
> you'd end up with a generally unstable OS.
Implausible, since macromedia's main testing environment would obviously
be firefox.
Again, put the user in control of the situation, not the packager.
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 21:22 +0000, Jim
> But that should be an indication of why testing is necessary: a failed
> installation and a message of why it failed is infinitely better than a
> successful installation that breaks browsers.
And better than both would be a warning of some kind that informs of the
situation, but still allows the user to override the developer's
decision to prevent the installation of software he wants.
> Yesterday's Konqueror bug
> could be tomorrow's Firefox bug, and you might break Firefox for all
> users. If you had all package maintainers with that maverick mentality,
> you'd end up with a generally unstable OS.
Implausible, since macromedia's main testing environment would obviously
be firefox.
Again, put the user in control of the situation, not the packager.