Am 07.06.23 um 17:26 schrieb Sebastian Kuzminsky:
On 6/7/23 06:48, andy pugh wrote:
Is it a problem that we haven't actually released 2.9 and that it is
due to be in Bookworm, which is due to be released very soon indeed?
IMO it would have been better if we released 2.9.0 and got it into
Bookworm, just because the version number
(`2.9.0~pre1+git20230208.f1270d6ed7`) looks a bit goofy and
unprofessional. Even just `2.9.0~pre2` would have been preferable.
Based on my reading of
<https://release.debian.org/testing/freeze_policy.html>, now that
Bookworm is in "Full Freeze" we should not upload a new upstream
release, so i think we're stuck with the big goofy version.
Any bugs we want to fix in the debian.org package will need to be
fixed in that version of our source code - i assume we'll fix it in
the "real" 2.9 and cherrypick/backport the fix to a "bookworm" branch
in our gbp repo (<https://github.com/LinuxCNC/linuxcnc-gbp).
I think that's ok. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I don't really care about the name, but we should use the next possible
opportunity to update the LinuxCNC packages in Debian. Maybe directly
after the release of Debian? It would give a bad first impression if the
version that one download from the Debian sources doesn't even start
properly.
_______________________________________________
Emc-developers mailing list
Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
