Bug#246153: RFA: unison -- file-synchronization tool for Unix and Windows
On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 08:10, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> 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.
Given that I'm not doing any of this, I'm happy to concede to anyone's
better judgement. I was just outlining what I had considered doing for
the benefit of anyone who's taking over.
> 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.
I said that we'd use the alternatives system, but I was just saying that
the user can use the command line option to guarantee they get the right
version of unison on the other end, regardless of how the alternatives
are configured there.
> Cheers.
Regards,
Rob
Reply to: