Re: maintaining upstream snapshot package
On August 24, 2003 at 2:25PM +1000,
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> > 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?
wl-beta has new features, bug fixes, etc. I feel that wl-beta is
useful and reaches Debian release-quality. But wl is more stable
than wl-beta, because wl-beta might have new/unknown bugs. Users
might prefer the upstream stable version instead of the CVS
snapshot. So, I provided user option, wl/wl-beta.
I can find `User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.10' (stable version) and
`User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.11' (CVS version) in Debian mailing
lists. I think that providing wl/wl-beta helps users.
> If, as maintainer, you think the current way of doing things is the best
> way, don't change.
Could you, Release Manager, accept putting wl and wl-beta in
Debian unstable/testing/stable? If so, I don't change the
current way (uploading wl and wl-beta in unstable).
BTW, I have a similar issue for the mew package. I ITPed
mew-beta (Bug#203991) on 2003-08-03, but it is now pending
because of this issue. I'll do the same way as wl for mew.
--
Tatsuya Kinoshita
Reply to: