Re: Bug#246153: RFA: unison -- file-synchronization tool for Unix and Windows
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 09:10:15AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 05:17:12AM +0100, Robert McQueen wrote:
> > direction of synchronisation with woody boxes. Accordingly we will need
> > three source packages:
> > * unison, which builds two transition binary packages "unison", which
> > * unison-2.9.1, which builds two binary packages "unison-2.9.1", which
> > * unison-2.9.20, which is the same except with the appropriate version,
> I suggest not to use version number neither in source package names nor
> in binary package ones. It would delay archive entering due to the need
> of manual processing and this would happen each time we will need to
> upload a new unison version. Why don't simply use some symbolic names?
> "unison" is fine for the transition package, for the other two dunno,
> maybe unison-devel or unison-latest and unison-stable.
That means that unison-stable from debian n+1 would be compatible with
unison-devel from debian n? That sounds quite odd...