Re: Starting unstable aptitude releases and RFC
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 02:08:40PM -0500, Neal H Walfield <neal@cs.uml.edu> was heard to say:
> > One question that I'd like people to comment on: I'd like to release a
> > precompiled binary package for this version, but I don't think releasing it as
> > "aptitude" is a good idea :)
> > Would it work if I ITPed "aptitude1" and uploaded that package [1]? The only
> > thing that really worries me is that I'll eventually want to remove this
> > package and release it as "aptitude" (once the new version is working well),
> > and people who only install aptitude1 will be cut out of upgrades once that
> > package is removed and not know what's going on. That sounds like a nasty
> > situation to me, unless I make aptitude1 artifically depend on aptitude (EVIL!)
>
> Why not call it aptitude-beta. Then when you release .1, the
> aptitude-beta package moves to aptitude and you begin development on .2
> which you also call aptitude-beta (for packaging purposes).
Ah, good suggestion. Except that there will probably be a period of time
where I'm just working on a 'non-beta' release; maybe I should make
aptitude-beta an empty package depending on aptitude while that's true? (Ew,
but not as bad as some other alternatives)
Daniel
--
/----------------- Daniel Burrows <Daniel_Burrows@brown.edu> -----------------\
| "The spork is strong with him..." -- Fluble |
\---- Be like the kid in the movie! Play chess! -- http://www.uschess.org ---/
Reply to: