Re: Version 1 accidentally released as version 2...
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 02:44:14PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> For one of the packages I created, the upstream sources I used were a
> version 1.x accidentally released as version 2.0 on sourceforge.
"Accidentally"? Did you package and upload this new upstream release? Has
upstream gone back to numbering their releases as 1.x? I don't really
understand the problem. It sounds like there's a new major version of the
software, which is incompatible with the old version, but that's not very
"accidental".
> The
> differences between the two versions are quite high, as the file formats
> accepted in input have changed (some added, some removed).
>
> I am wondering what I am supposed to do in this case :
>
> a) Release a different package which conflicts on the previous, or
Perhaps, if the changes are major enough that silently upgrading is likely
to deeply annoy some people (or if the program has effectively forked and
1.x is going to continue being developed alongside 2.x). The conflict is
only required if both packages are going to provide files of the same names.
> b) use an epoch and upgrade the current package as version 2.0, or
I don't understand what problem you're trying to solve, exactly, but this
would only be necessary where you "accidentally" packaged a 2.x release when
upstream is really still only making 1.x releases.
> c) ask upstream to increase the version number (for instance they could
> include add the manpages I wrote for the program) and upgrade then.
That's another possiblity, but it depends greatly on what exactly upstream
have done, whether they consider it to be a problem as well, what their
plans are in general, and what sort of relationship you've got with them.
> The options b) or c) could be accompagned by a NEWS or something
> equivalent if this is not an abuse, to tell that there has been a major
> version change and that scripts could break.
An item in NEWS is a good idea if people could suffer problems on the
upgrade.
> I would favor option a), but if upstream becomes suddently mega-active
> and releases a major version every half year, this could be a mess.
I don't see the problem with just making a new version of the existing
package, automatically upgrading as much as you can, and warning users that
Things Have Changed. But I really don't understand the exact problem that
you're having.
- Matt
Reply to: