Re: Extending version numbering (Was: glibc_2.0.7pre1-3)
Santiago Vila writes:
> Current glibc_2.0.7pre1-3 should have been packaged for experimental,
> since it is not released software.
Yes. I guess most "pre" releases should, so I feel as quite bad to
add epoch to (un)stable where they will be useless.
> Something like [...] "2.0.6.pre2.0.7-3" would have been a better
If it's only for experimental, it should be a good idea.
> name (I use procmail_3.10.7 for procmail-3.11pre7).
I'm against that as it makes the version look like a bugfix release,
not a beta or alpha !
> Once we already have 2.0.7pre1-3, I would not mind at all having to
> install final 2.0.7 by hand, without ugly epochs or "rel" things.
I do care for ease of use. You'll note I added support for
experimental in dpkg-ftp ; that's not to suggest behaviour that will
fool it ;)
> We should remember that most people have *not* upgraded to hamm yet.
Yes, but developpers are usally *heavily* using the unstable tree, so
we should have a little consideration for ourselves ;)
I'd suggest to add a paragraph in the policy or packaging manual,
recommending for "pre" releases:
* to put them in experimental only, unless otherwise necessary
* to use the "2.0.6.pre2.0.7-3" style of numbering, for homogeneity
Yann Dirson <firstname.lastname@example.org> | Stop making M$-Bill richer & richer,
alt-email: <email@example.com> | support Debian GNU/Linux:
debian-email: <firstname.lastname@example.org> | more powerful, more stable !
http://www.a2points.com/homepage/3475232 | Check <http://www.debian.org/>