Re: r3715 - in trunk/src/debian-edu-config: debian testsuite
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 08-06-2005 08:35, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote:
>>>I guess this hasn't been discussed, but after having experienced almost
>>>beeing blocked from the Debian BTS (at least threthened to be) for
>>>bugging a Debian package built and maintained by a Debian maintainer,
>>>not released to debian, but only to debian-edu, and with no sign of
>>>beeing a development version; i think we need something that identifies
>>>that this is clearly a development/cvs/svn-version.
>
> If this was indirectly aimed at me then please clarify: I don't
> recognize the treatment you describe.
It was not aimed at you, as all are well aware of all our flamewars goes
in public. But the name of the package (or it's maintainer) is of no
matter, unless this is intolerant behavier from a DD, and the developer
should be punished (I doubt it).
> If this has nothing to do with me or lessdisks then sorry for my noise
> (it just seems from your recent postings, Finn-Arne, that lessdisks is
> the only unofficial package besides SUN Java).
We have a couple of debian-edu-specific packages, those are of course at
constant development, and the one on the CD and our local repository may
be of newer date then the ones upstream in debian. Often we "releses" a
packages several times a day.
> Whatever the target of criticism, I agree that unofficial Skolelinux
> releases are easier to handle if given an outstanding version number.
> My suggestion is to use 4th segment of the Debian version number, and
> stay right above latest official version if only Debian-related changes,
> and right below upstream release number if packaging a newer upstream
> version.
>
> Example: Newest version of debian-edu-config officially in Debian is
> 0.398 (no upstream version, only Debian version). An unofficial release
> should then be 0.398.0.sl1.
>
> Another example: Newest version of Lessdisks officially in Debian is
> 0.5.3cvs.20040906-16. An unofficial release of newer upstream version
> 0.6.2c should then be 0.6.2c-0.0.0.sl1.
The trouble here is that the lessdisks packages is the upstream version,
it's not a custom Skolelinux version. But maybe it would be better not
to have the lessdisks packages on the CD, to prevent people from
installing lessdisks which is not supported by debian nor Skolelinux
> If using a version number likely to be used also for official Debian
> releases, there is a risk of two different packages with same version:
> security fixes in Debian may go unnoticed in Skolelinux!
Yes.
> The reason for using 4th segment is that 1st is reserved for the package
> maintainer, 2nd is reserved for NMUs and the third is reserved for
> binary-only official rebuilds.
I guess I should have known this ....
--
Finn-Arne Johansen
faj@bzz.no http://bzz.no/
Leverandør av support på, drift og videreutvikling av Skolelinux-løsninger
Reply to: