Re: RFS: vidalia
Le Sunday 25 May 2008 17:04:32 George Danchev, vous avez écrit :
> On Sunday 25 May 2008, Colin Tuckley wrote:
> > George Danchev wrote:
> > > On Sunday 25 May 2008, Colin Tuckley wrote:
> > >> Finally, this is the first ever Debian package for vidalia so it
> > >> should have a Debian version of -1.
> > >
> > > I consider such requirement quite suboptimal. 1) you kill history 2)
> > > even not being officially published,
> >
> > Please go and read what I said. This package has *never* been in Debian
> > so there is *no* history. Uploading it to mentors doesn't really count
> > since it won't stay there after it's been uploaded to Debian.
>
> the timeframe residing on mentors is not guaranteed to be short, plus there
> are packages which have been residing on a user's public servers for quite
> some time before being put on mentors, so having versioning preserved would
> help a lot of users.
Heh, the usual debate :-)
There are no reasons to enforce one or the other, both have advantages and
issues. For myself, I do enforce the -1 = initial debian upload scheme.
It is also the liberty of the sponsor to require what *he* believes is the
good thing to do.
But don't forget that at this point the package is not supposed to be
widespreaded, so arguing that it "helps a lot of users" is wrong for sure.
Also, reviewing packages on mentors can lead to a large number of
uploads/review/fixes cycles, and if you bump the version each time, it
doesn't have any meaning too.
Romain
Reply to: