On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:45:26AM +0900, Tatsuya Kinoshita wrote:
> > In order to ease some of the pressure on unstable, we're encouraging
> > greater usage of experimental. [...]
> 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.
Why? If wl-beta is Debian release-quality, why would anyone want to
use wl? Are you doing this for the benefit of users, or because you're
worried you might be guessing wrong, or because it's what upstream
prefers, or what?
> Should we remove Debian wl-beta package from unstable?
Only distributing one version of the package is less confusing for users;
but there may be other reasons to distribute multiple versions that are
more important. cf exim and exim4, eg.
> Should we rename Debian wl/wl-beta packages if we want to put
> both packages in unstable/testing/stable?
That seems like a bad idea; package renames are generally more of a nuisance
than a benefit.
If, as maintainer, you think the current way of doing things is the best
way, don't change.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Is this some kind of psych test?
Am I getting paid for this?''
Attachment:
pgp4W1GkrbIkX.pgp
Description: PGP signature