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

Re: file naming convention for debian package files (was: Re: dselect FTP method ...)

  Bill Mitchell writes:
  Bill> Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk> 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
  Ian> confusing. 
  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

Reply to: