Re: Bug#155105: Version upgrades in stable
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes:
> 3.2. Changes in DocBook V4.2CR3
> The only changes made for the CR3 release were in comments in
> the various modules. The previous release, labelled "Candidate
> Release 2", erroneously contained the CR1 files. This release
> fixes that error.
FYI, I did this change myself for CR2 in the docbook-xml package.
> In other words, CR2 is functionally indistinguishable from either CR3
> or the 4.2 Committee Specification release.
That's good, but what about between CR1 and CR2 ?
> | Anyhow, since the package, docbook, doesn't have a 4.2 version yet in
> | the archive at all, you'll have to wait. In fact, you should wait
> | until it's propogated down to the 'testing' distribution. Then and
> | only then you could try to contact the ftp-masters and ask if they
> | would update stable with the proper 4.2 version.
>
> ASAP, please.
docbook-xml 4.2 is now in Debian/unstable. It should propogate to
testing in two weeks.
What is in stable is cr1, both for docbook SGML and docbook-xml.
docbook-xml had a cr2 which is in testing; docbook SGML I never did a
cr2 for.
I should be able to upload docbook 4.2 tonight.
> | But honestly I'm sure they'll say "no", and I agree with them. You
> | would need to cite an actual problem which happens if someone uses
> | 4.2CR2 rather than 4.2.
>
> Well, as long as the relevant catalogs map 4.2 identifiers to 4.2CR2,
> I suppose there are no practical problems.
Yes, it does.
To summarize:
I still have not seen data that having 4.2 CR1 in stable rather than
the "real" 4.2 will cause a significant problem for users.
--
...Adam Di Carlo..<adam@onshore-devel.com>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>
Reply to: