Le Sunday 25 May 2008 17:04:32 George Danchev, vous avez écrit : > On Sunday 25 May 2008, Colin Tuckley wrote: > > George Danchev wrote: > > > On Sunday 25 May 2008, Colin Tuckley wrote: > > >> Finally, this is the first ever Debian package for vidalia so it > > >> should have a Debian version of -1. > > > > > > I consider such requirement quite suboptimal. 1) you kill history 2) > > > even not being officially published, > > > > Please go and read what I said. This package has *never* been in Debian > > so there is *no* history. Uploading it to mentors doesn't really count > > since it won't stay there after it's been uploaded to Debian. > > the timeframe residing on mentors is not guaranteed to be short, plus there > are packages which have been residing on a user's public servers for quite > some time before being put on mentors, so having versioning preserved would > help a lot of users.
Heh, the usual debate :-) There are no reasons to enforce one or the other, both have advantages and issues. For myself, I do enforce the -1 = initial debian upload scheme. It is also the liberty of the sponsor to require what *he* believes is the good thing to do. But don't forget that at this point the package is not supposed to be widespreaded, so arguing that it "helps a lot of users" is wrong for sure. Also, reviewing packages on mentors can lead to a large number of uploads/review/fixes cycles, and if you bump the version each time, it doesn't have any meaning too. Romain -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
