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

Re: RFC/ITP: everybuddy-cvs



>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org> writes:

    Ben> On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 04:06:33PM +0000, michael d. ivey wrote:
    >> I started making personal debs of the everybuddy CVS snapshots because EB
    >> releases tend to lag pretty far behind the code in CVS.  I called my
    >> package ebsnap, and made it conflict with everybuddy.  I put it on my
    >> site, and that was that.
    >> 
    >> Now, I've adopted everybuddy and gotten through the NM process.  I'd like
    >> to add the CVS version to unstable...but I don't know what to call it.
    >> My current idea is everybuddy-cvs, and make it conflict with everybuddy,
    >> and conflict/replace ebsnap, for the people who may have downloaded
    >> ebsnap.  Is that the correct way to proceed?
    >> 
    >> I'll be doing the rename and the upload sometime early next week.

    Ben> Keep it the same name. Woody is unstable right now, there are
    Ben> a lot of packages that are pre-release just for the sake of
    Ben> testing and working out bugs. So, IMO, keep it the same name,
    Ben> and version it appropriately. Also might add "This is a CVS
    Ben> build" at the bottom of the description.

Sorry, but that is *wrong*.

What happens when we release and everybuddy is still not stable?  Do
we pull it out if it's too unstable?  Why, of course we will.  Which
would leave our users w/o everybuddy.

Or we could pull it, and replace it with the last stable... oops, the
version number will be lower.  So we'd need an epoch.  Very bad.

I've lobbied Clint Adams for doing both a zsh 3.0 and a 3.1 package.
I wouldn't want to see other packages going that "unstable is the
greatest, fuck the users who want bulletproof stable".

I think it's obvious I feel strongly about this...

    Ben> Note, you can't break much anyway. I'm about ready to upload
    Ben> glibc 2.1.93 (pre-2.2) to woody anyway, so if anything is
    Ben> going to break, it's most likely going to be my fault :)

Thanks for the warning. ;-)

[1] as I've just now realized, he's doing three: zsh30 for the stable
3.0.x series, zsh for the devel series, and zsh-beta apparently for
CVS snapshots.  I'd rather have zsh be 3.0.x and zsh-unstable for
3.1.x... but I guess one can't have everything ;-)

-- 
Jürgen A. Erhard    juergen.erhard@gmx.net   phone: (GERMANY) 0721 27326
     MARS: http://members.tripod.com/Juergen_Erhard/mars_index.html
                Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org)
             pros do it for money -- amateurs out of love.

Attachment: pgpSmuHbtwpGN.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: