On 14/04/14 11:00, Michael Gilbert wrote: > Hey everyone, > > I think the name of the package needs to change prior to ending up in > testing/stable. Hi Michael, > > I've also thought about version numbers (like plain old 1.7), but that > means a trip to new for every new major version. That doesn't happen > to often, but it's sufficiently annoying that I would prefer to avoid > it. This is probably best avoided since, in addition to extra work for you, it requires knowledge of the development model used by upstream to decide which package to install. Plus the upstream development model may change at some time in the future, forcing package naming to change too. > > I've also thought about swapping the naming of two wine packages to > end up with wine-stable and wine, but that might be too disruptive. I think that this probably is too disruptive, and surprising behaviour for users. Upstream recommended usage is to try your app using the stable version, and only upgrade if you run into issues [0]. As for naming, I think that "wine" and "wine-development" are accurate and unambiguous. This also has the benefit of matching upstream terminology. The length of the names seems fairly unimportant - this is why we have tab completion! :) Anyway, from an appreciative user, thanks for your work on packaging wine! -- Regards, Scott Leggett. [0] http://wiki.winehq.org/FAQ#head-0bae04b4126dffb8a08bf020982badacb6f367ff
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature