Re: FVWM 2.2 officially released
> On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > fvwm2 package? I know that this is an ongoing problem, so here are
> > the alternatives as I see them:
> > (1) Have fvwm become an empty package (priority extra) which Depends:
> > fvwm2. OK.
> > (3) Use some nice, new Replaced-by: feature or similar. If it
> > exists.
> Just have fvwm2 Provides: and Replaces: fvwm.
> This is how it is done usually.
> It's up to apt/dselect to detect that a new package replaces another one.
OK, I'll try that.
> > Also, fvwm is now copying the Linux numbering scheme of 2.2.x being
> > the stable version and 2.3.x being unstable. How would it be to have
> > a separate (conflicting) fvwm2-beta package following the development
> > track?
> What for? Isn't the stable version enough? In case it's _really_ needed
> (the policy says alpha/beta version should not be packaged), it should
> probably go to the experimental section.
Several examples spring to mind: we've had development track kernels
around for a bit; teTeX is almost eternally in beta state at the
moment, so is GNOME, and of course there's fvwm2. Fvwm2 was in beta
state for I don't know how long -- the first Debian changelog entry is
dated April 1996 -- and that was version 2.0.42! So I don't think it
is worth waiting around for the next official release before starting
to package the development track.
What do you think of this? Of course, I won't even consider packaging
betas until I have an essentially bug-free lintian-clean stable
release, so that could be some way in the future....
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
Debian GNU/Linux Developer. firstname.lastname@example.org
-*- Finger email@example.com for my PGP public key. -*-