constraints - observations and questions (bringing to list)

[Gustavo Niemeyer]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM, William Reade
<william.reade at canonical.com> wrote:
> +100 -- I do not think it's acceptable to take that language off the
> table. But it's not quite so simple: the goal is that a script written
> for provider X should have the best possible chance of Just Working on
> provider Y.

Agreed, and it should also be possible to have a script built that
works on provider X, Y, and Z, with intended results.


gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net