maintaining upstream snapshot package (was: Bits from the RM)
On August 19, 2003 at 4:49PM +1000,
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> In order to ease some of the pressure on unstable, we're encouraging
> greater usage of experimental. The plan here is that you should upload the
> latest, release-quality packages to unstable; and the latest development
> packages to experimental. This means daily snapshots, CVS versions,
> alphas, pre-releases and so forth. If you're currently maintaining
> a foo-snapshot package in unstable, you should consider dropping the
> -snapshot, and uploading it to experimental. It also means you should make
> an extra effort to ensure that what you put in unstable is maintained at
> the quality you'd expect from a Debian stable release, although obviously
> with far more frequent changes. You won't always succeed, unless you're
> some sort of packaging God, but that should definitely be your aim.
I'm a maintainer of Debian wl/wl-beta packages (Wanderlust:
mail/news reader for Emacsen).
Debian wl package provides the upstream stable version (latest
version is 2.10.1-2). Debian wl-beta package provides the
upstream CVS snapshot which reaches Debian release-quality
(latest version is 2.11.7+0.20030814-1).
I intended to include both wl and wl-beta in Debian unstable/
testing/stable.
Should we remove Debian wl-beta package from unstable?
Should we rename Debian wl/wl-beta packages if we want to put
both packages in unstable/testing/stable? (e.g. wl-beta -> wl
(latest release-quality package), wl -> wl-stable (more stable
package, upstream stable version))
Comments?
--
Tatsuya Kinoshita
Reply to: