Re: CMSP 23. Have a development version flag

2009-10-13 Thread Damyan Ivanov 
-=| Graham Barr, Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 09:20:37AM -0500 |=-
 
 On Oct 9, 2009, at 8:17 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote:
 
 * David Golden xda...@gmail.com [2009-10-09T07:52:45]
 23. Have a development version flag
 
 Agreed.
 
 * Con: Development version'ness would not be determinable post-
 installation
  AdamKennedy
 
 Packlist 2.0?
 
 Agreed.
 
 The main use of development status seems to be control if the
 distribution is indexed as the latest released etc. So having a flag
 instead of the hackish way we use _ seems a benefit.

+1

Getting rid of _ will simplify downstream handling of versions. 
Currently one has to dig into CHANGES in order to determine if 
1.002_04 is a dev release after 1.002 or the fourth beta before 1.002.

Not that I am all for packaging development releases downstream, but 
some times they fix bugs and are a necessary evil.

-- 
dam


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: CMSP 23. Have a development version flag

2009-10-09 Thread Ricardo Signes 
* David Golden xda...@gmail.com [2009-10-09T07:52:45]
 23. Have a development version flag

Agreed.

 * Con: Development version'ness would not be determinable post-installation
   AdamKennedy

Packlist 2.0?

-- 
rjbs

Re: CMSP 23. Have a development version flag

2009-10-09 Thread Steffen Mueller 

David Golden wrote:

23. Have a development version flag



* Con: Development version'ness would not be determinable post-installation
  AdamKennedy


Correction to my earlier reply: If we have the META info available 
*easily* post installation (cf. 33), my vote becomes a +1.


Steffen

Re: CMSP 23. Have a development version flag

2009-10-09 Thread David E. Wheeler 

On Oct 9, 2009, at 7:20 AM, Graham Barr wrote:


Packlist 2.0?


Agreed.

The main use of development status seems to be control if the  
distribution is indexed as the latest released etc. So having a flag  
instead of the hackish way we use _ seems a benefit.


+1

David

Re: CMSP 23. Have a development version flag

2009-10-09 Thread David Golden 
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Steffen Mueller
nj88ud...@sneakemail.com wrote:
 David Golden wrote:

 23. Have a development version flag

 * Con: Development version'ness would not be determinable
 post-installation
  AdamKennedy

 Correction to my earlier reply: If we have the META info available *easily*
 post installation (cf. 33), my vote becomes a +1.

That's the idea, which is why I'm in favor.

Compared to a release_status field, this would be purely binary and
thus not subject to people inventing new status categories.

-- David