Am 03.09.2013 um 13:26 schrieb Laurent Blume <laur...@opencsw.org>: > On 03/09/13 12:39, slowfranklin wrote: >> Fast forward 2 years, fast forward 5 years. Versioned packages all >> over the place. Eg possibly CSWsamba, CSWsamba4, CSWsamba5, >> CSWsamba6. *blah* > > Yes? So what? I'm genuinely puzzled now. How is that a problem? Personal > hatred for numbers? :-)
Well, we'll also need versioned libraries like CSWsamba4-libwclient0, CSWsamba4-libsmbclient0. But other then a vague feeling that versioned names are a blatant workaround for a problem that is arising from abusing a rolling catalog, no, I can't substantiate my concerns. > If it's just against your personal taste, well, okay, de gustibus et > coloribus non disputandum, but it doesn't make it a *bad* technical decision: > it avoids problems instead of creating them, So, why not? > >> We're *forced* to use verioned package names due to the lack of any >> usable catalog other then unstable. > > Well, since others do just that, package versioning, it must not be so wrong. Well, since others (Debian, Fedora, ArchLinux) were all going for an inplace upgrade, I considered that the obvious choice for an unstable rolling catalog. But we now have two votes for using the 4 suffix, so be it. :) -slow _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list maintainers@lists.opencsw.org https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.