[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Epoch bump request for ksh



On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 10:04:08PM +0530, Anuradha Weeraman wrote:
> 2) If you do go ahead with switching to the community distribution, then
> "93u+m" is part of the name, not the version number, so I'd suggest:
[...]
Correction: rushed the last email, I meant to say that I agree that 93u+m
is not part of the version per se. I just thought that it would be good
to include, just for specificity.  However, amending the proposed version
as suggested since it makes sense:

1:1.0.0~beta.1-1

Hmm. If the project refers to itself as 93u+m does it make sense to package it as ksh instead of something like ksh93u+m? This reminds me of when debian first packaged openssh as "ssh" because that's what the predecessor package and the binary were called but in the long run renamed it to "openssh". (And with a new name the version/epoch question is moot.)


Reply to: