On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:48:57PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 08:35:27AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5. > > For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final. > > > > What would be the best numbering scheme for the next beta series to > > avoid the use of final for the stable release ? > > > > I think about 2.0.99beta1, 2.0.99beta2 ... 2.1 > > The problem is that 2.0.99beta < 2.0final, if I'm right. > (Try dpkg --compare-versions "2.0.99beta" lt "2.0final" , > if $? is not 0 then I'm wrong) $ dpkg --compare-versions "2.0.99beta" lt "2.0final" ; echo $? 1 $ dpkg --compare-versions "2.1" lt "2.0.99beta" ; echo $? 1 > > I would advice that you do not provide beta versions > of software, because this is bad practice. If you really > want to do this, please ship both the stable version and > the beta version. Yes but it depends how the project evolves. For gphoto2, the final was out (today) long after the first beta and theses betas where in good shape. Christophe > > -- > Jérôme Marant > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-request@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > -- Christophe Barbé <christophe.barbe@ufies.org> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
Attachment:
pgp8vPY6ebFQP.pgp
Description: PGP signature