Re: file naming convention for debian package files (was: Re: dselect FTP method ...)
Bill Mitchell writes:
Bill> Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
Ian> * dpkg and other packages written especially for Debian don't have a
Ian> revision number because a revision number would be meaningless and
Bill> I'm not religious on this issue, but I'd prefer it if a revision
Bill> (or, equivalently, a hyphen-delimited revision suffix of the version
Bill> number) were a required part of the package name. Authors of
Bill> packages which originate under debian could arbitrarily choose 0 or 1
Bill> for the revision for debian packaging purposes. I don't see any
Bill> advantage in introducing an unnecessary irregularity into the package
Bill> naming and versioning scheme over this.
We should require a revision number for Debian packages. Imagine someone
forgets to remove -g in the Makefile and doesn't strip the executable, or
some other oversight happens. You need a revision number to distinguish
an oversight-fix release.
To err is human, so let's thrive for fault tolerance.
Dirk Eddelb"uttel http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/~edd