[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#720108: Please upload 0.3.3 to unstable

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Christoph Egger <christoph@debian.org> wrote:
> Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> writes:
>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 01:36:21AM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
>>> > Package: supertux
>>> > Version: 0.1.3-3
>>> > Severity: wishlist
>>> >
>>> > The supertux 0.3.x series has been in experimental for years now.  Any
>>> > reason not to upload it to unstable?
>>> No reason, aside from that's the state the package was in when I first
>>> adopted supertux.
>>> If we were to change this, I'd be more inclined to go with Ubuntu's
>>> approach here, i.e. package both and let users have the choice to
>>> install one or both at the same time. In Ubuntu, they have
>>> src:supertux which builds binary packages supertux and supertux-data
>>> (from the 0.3.x branch), and src:supertux-stable which builds binary
>>> packages supertux-stable and supertux-data-stable (from the 0.1.x
>>> branch). No file conflicts are introduced (supertux 0.3.x installs
>>> /usr/games/supertux2, whereas supertux 0.1.x installs
>>> /usr/games/supertux).
>> What's the rationale for maintaining both branches, rather than just
>> dropping the 0.1.x series completely?
> Version 1
> =========
> This is the stable version of SuperTux, also called Milestone 1. It
> provides a polished gaming experience and is the overall recommended
> version.
> Version 3
> =========
> The development snapshot is an unstable version of SuperTux, meant as a
> technology preview and for people who are not afraid to write bug
> reports.
> Please keep in mind that this is a work in progress! Everything you see
> here is subject to change and may even be removed.
> ---
> Or in other works the 0.3 series is not something you'd expect in a
> stable release (at least not as `supertux' it *might* be fine as
> `supertux-experimental' if you believe there's need for 0.3 in a stable
> release *and* you are willing to support it independent from upstream

This sounds reasonable in theory, but other distros like Ubuntu and
Fedora have been shipping the 0.3.x series as the default option for
years, and upstream also supports it too (I've no idea why you'd think
that upstream wouldn't offer support for using their latest code).


Reply to: