Re: RFS: scribus
* Martin Godisch <email@example.com> [2004-02-20 22:35:46 +0100]:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 11:36:33 -0500, O. Moskalenko wrote:
> > * Martin Godisch <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2004-02-20 17:12:12 +0100]:
> > > I suggest to put 1.1.5 into unstable/testing and 1.2.0~cvs into
> > > experimental.
> > CVS is stable. Frankly, the release is pretty much a CVS snapshot. 1.2.0
> > will be released around the end of April, so it will probably happen way
> > before sarge is out. I think that the effort is better spent working out
> > problems due to the clash of debian and upstream policy on executable
> > libs and non-FHS file placement then on maintaining two separate
> > versions. Please tell my why it is not so if you think contrary.
> I don't say you're wrong. It's more a matter of personal taste. I don't
> like CVS snapshot packages, think the upstream author should know when
> to release. As a user, I like released software on my system. It's also
> a question how the CVS tree is handled between releases. I cannot speak
> for scribus, and if you're the Debian maintainer it's your decision.
> Kind regards,
Thank you for your thoughts on the matter.