On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 05:17:12AM +0100, Robert McQueen wrote:
> direction of synchronisation with woody boxes. Accordingly we will need
> three source packages:
> * unison, which builds two transition binary packages "unison", which
> * unison-2.9.1, which builds two binary packages "unison-2.9.1", which
> * unison-2.9.20, which is the same except with the appropriate version,
I suggest not to use version number neither in source package names nor
in binary package ones. It would delay archive entering due to the need
of manual processing and this would happen each time we will need to
upload a new unison version. Why don't simply use some symbolic names?
"unison" is fine for the transition package, for the other two dunno,
maybe unison-devel or unison-latest and unison-stable.
> Unison has a command-line option to specify a versioned binary to use on
> the remote end of the connection, so I believe this packaging and naming
> scheme will allow concurrent installation of all necessary versions of
> unison to, eg, synchronise between a sid machine with 2.9.1-gtk and a
Why not simply using the debian alternative system with a symbolic name
of unison and the usual versioned binary names (e.g. unison-2.9.1,
unison-2.9.20)? I think is more standard and users can tune which
default version they want to use.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature