Re: maintaining upstream snapshot package (was: Bits from the RM)
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 02:25:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:45:26AM +0900, Tatsuya Kinoshita wrote: In order to ease some of the pressure on unstable, we're encouraging greater usage of experimental. [...] I'm a maintainer of Debian wl/wl-beta packages (Wanderlust: mail/news reader for Emacsen). Debian wl package provides the upstream stable version (latest version is 2.10.1-2). Debian wl-beta package provides the upstream CVS snapshot which reaches Debian release-quality (latest version is 2.11.7+0.20030814-1). I intended to include both wl and wl-beta in Debian unstable/ testing/stable. Why? If wl-beta is Debian release-quality, why would anyone want to use wl? Are you doing this for the benefit of users, or because you're worried you might be guessing wrong, or because it's what upstream prefers, or what? Hah, and Mark Howard wants to remove galeon 1.3 from unstable since it is only a cvs snapshot because of what you said. I think maybe you want to clarify a bit more the experimental use and cvs snapshot thingy. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: maintaining upstream snapshot package (was: Bits from the RM)
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:14:51AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Hah, and Mark Howard wants to remove galeon 1.3 from unstable since it is only a cvs snapshot because of what you said. I think maybe you want to clarify a bit more the experimental use and cvs snapshot thingy. It's entirely appropriate for the maintainer to be making these decisions. (Although downgrading galeon.deb from 1.3 to 1.2 or similar in unstable would be awkward to manage well, involving epochs and probably some dependency nastiness.) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?'' pgpcSBliJ4d9K.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: maintaining upstream snapshot package (was: Bits from the RM)
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:22:14PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:14:51AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Hah, and Mark Howard wants to remove galeon 1.3 from unstable since it is only a cvs snapshot because of what you said. I think maybe you want to clarify a bit more the experimental use and cvs snapshot thingy. It's entirely appropriate for the maintainer to be making these decisions. Sure, sure, if there is reason for it, but saying that : My next upload of galeon will be to the experimental branch of Debian as per the requests of the release manager. I will then request the removal of galeon packages from sarge and sid. Seems to be overkill. Also, as i understand it, uploading to experimental instead of stable only really makes sense for a package that has a somewhat stable and functional version in unstable, not to upload a package that people have been using for ages from the archive entirely to keep only the experimental version. I am sure this was not your intention as well, no ? Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: maintaining upstream snapshot package (was: Bits from the RM)
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 07:45:26AM +0900, Tatsuya Kinoshita wrote: In order to ease some of the pressure on unstable, we're encouraging greater usage of experimental. [...] I'm a maintainer of Debian wl/wl-beta packages (Wanderlust: mail/news reader for Emacsen). Debian wl package provides the upstream stable version (latest version is 2.10.1-2). Debian wl-beta package provides the upstream CVS snapshot which reaches Debian release-quality (latest version is 2.11.7+0.20030814-1). I intended to include both wl and wl-beta in Debian unstable/ testing/stable. Why? If wl-beta is Debian release-quality, why would anyone want to use wl? Are you doing this for the benefit of users, or because you're worried you might be guessing wrong, or because it's what upstream prefers, or what? Should we remove Debian wl-beta package from unstable? Only distributing one version of the package is less confusing for users; but there may be other reasons to distribute multiple versions that are more important. cf exim and exim4, eg. Should we rename Debian wl/wl-beta packages if we want to put both packages in unstable/testing/stable? That seems like a bad idea; package renames are generally more of a nuisance than a benefit. If, as maintainer, you think the current way of doing things is the best way, don't change. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?'' pgp4YuOfcXT6h.pgp Description: PGP signature
