Bug#278174: cal3d cvs package
Am Montag, 25. Oktober 2004 13:39 schrieb Loic Dachary:
> Michael Koch writes:
> > Am Montag, 25. Oktober 2004 12:30 schrieb Loic Dachary:
> > > Michael Koch writes:
> > > > Would it be an idea for you to not use a cal3d-cvs package
> > > > and directly use the normal cal3d package and update it to
> > > > some recent CVS thats known to work. I don't want such a
> > > > package in sarge/testing yet but this should be easy to
> > > > handle. As you are a cal3d developer you could easily fix
> > > > reported bugs in CVS and we could update the package then.
> > > > This will benefit all users of cal3d I think.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think about this ?
> > >
> > > If the cal3d package is based on CVS AND has a release number
> > > (such as 0.9.1 or 0.9.2), how can people know that it comes
> > > from the CVS at a given date ? Also I think this would
> > > contradict the debian policy for naming CVS based packages.
> > >
> > > Maybe I misunderstood you ?
> >
> > extra cvs packages are normally only made when a released
> > version has to be in the archive and CVS has some major
> > improvemnts. IMO keeping two versions in the archive is bloat in
> > this case (not because of size). We need only one version of
> > cal3d and all apps should use the best version they can get. As
> > you said CVS has less bugs and some speed improvements.
> >
> > We can name the package like this:
> >
> > 0.9.1+cvs20041025
> >
> > That is easily handable and all users see at first look that it
> > includes CVS improvements.
>
> I'm Ok with this. Now we have to figure out which version the
> library should have for this package. Do you have a preference or a
> suggestion ?
Do you mean package version or library version (aka soname) ?
For the first look above.
For the second feel free to choose a unique one.
Michael
--
Homepage: http://www.worldforge.org/
Reply to: