Re: Package naming vs. versioning
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 11:50:11AM -0800, Grant Bowman wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have seen packages change their package names to include a version
> number. Reading the policy, there is little guidance on this subject.
> It would seem that's what Epochs are designed for. However I am aware
> there could be reasons for wanting to change the package name. One
> reason might be wanting to run multiple versions concurrently like the
> libdb or kernel-image packages. Autoconf only renames the older
> version which seems proper. Another reason might be that a previous
> packager is AWOL.
(1) libdb: Shared library packages have the major version number in
their name; see policy 11.3.
(2) Epochs are designed for when a mistake is made or the version
numbering scheme changes. Remember that epochs are often not
shown with the version number, so use them only when essential.
(3) Kernel example: yes, you are right.
(4) autoconf2.13/autoconf and other examples, such as fvwm1/fvwm: this
is only done in cases where the newer package differs so
significantly from the older package that the maintainer believes
that there is a real need for the old package to continue to
exist. In this case, the newer package usually supersedes the old
one, but the old one continues to be available if specifically
wanted.
(5) apache (1.3)/apache2, in the past fvwm (1.x)/fvwm2. Here are
examples where the newer package is still in alpha or beta state
and not yet ready to be released into the wild. In this case, we
don't want people to be automatically upgraded, and so we name the
unstable package something different, so people only get the newer
package if they specifically request it. At a later stage, when
the newer version is more stable, they may rename the newer one to
the original name and provide a dummy transition package for
"brave" people.
> The trouble with changing the package name is lack of clarity. The
> same software is under different names, perhaps in different
> distributions like woody vs. potato. It just seems wrong to me in a
> general case for a standard package to use a version in the package
> name. What is the "right" way to handle this?
See above for my thoughts.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Queen Mary, Univ. of London see http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~jdg/ or http://www.debian.org/
Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry
Also: http://www.helpthehungry.org/
Reply to: