Re: What about removing mozilla-snapshot from unstable as well?
On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 08:49:50AM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Anthony Towns <email@example.com> [2004-03-16 13:51]:
> > > > But it is difficult for me(currently) to maintain two versions of
> > > > mozilla.
> > > > So, I'll orphan it...
> > > Is anyone interested in maintaining a mozilla-snapshot package in
> > > experimental?
> > Err, presumably it should just be called "mozilla" in that case?
> That's what I initially suggested, but I'm not sure having 2 mozilla
> packages with different maintainers is a good idea; unless they made
> sure the packaging is very similar.
Maybe; one of the benefits of doing stuff in experimental is to make sure
it's easy to put into unstable once it's released upstream, or otherwise
ready for unstable -- keeping the same names makes sure NEW processing
is already done, and makes upgrades easy. Having different maintainers
that don't work together probably means having some things work in one
package that won't be preserved in the other, which seems like a loss.
OTOH, if the packages need to be co-installable (a la gcc-3.0 and gcc-3.2)
then different package names are required.
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004