[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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  <ydirson@a2points.com>      | Stop making M$-Bill richer & richer,
alt-email:     <dirson@univ-mlv.fr>      |     support Debian GNU/Linux:
debian-email:   <dirson@debian.org>      |         more powerful, more stable !
http://www.a2points.com/homepage/3475232 | Check <http://www.debian.org/>

Reply to: