Re: Including both `production' and `alpha' releases of a package
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Remco van de Meent wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I have two packages of which I'd like to include two versions in the potato
> distribution, at least temporarily: majordomo and pciutils.
>
> There is an alpha version of the long-awaited majordomo 2.x available in a
> CVS-tree, which I'd like to package if possible. On the pciutils package:
> work is currently being done on the pciutils 2.x release, currently numbered
> as 1.99.x.
>
> As said, I'd like to include both the official release and the alpha release
> of those packages in the distribution, but I'm not sure how to do it. Of
> course, a possibility is to create two packages, package_x.x.x.deb (which
> currently in the distribution; the production release) and
> package2_x.x.x.deb, containing the alpha release, and have those packages
> Conflicts/Replaces each other.
>
> But there is one, in my opinion, disadvantage in doing it that way: when
> those alpha releases get production releases, I would like to get rid of the
> current production releases, but won't stick with the package2_x.x.x.deb
> naming scheme, I'd like to have them called package_x.x.x.deb.
>
> What is the most nice way to solve this issue? Should I do it like said
> above, or differently (for example renaming the current production release
> to package1_x.x.x.deb and the alpha release to package_x.x.x.deb right now)?
Upload one to project/experimental?
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: