On 15/10/16 11:01, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Am 14.10.2016 um 21:51 schrieb Steffan Karger:
>> On 14 Oct 2016 9:14 p.m., "Matthias Andree" <matthias.and...@gmx.de
>> <mailto:matthias.and...@gmx.de>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Am 14.10.2016 um 17:28 schrieb Samuli Seppänen:
>> > > Would 2.3.12 -> 2.4-alpha1 be too big an upgrade?
>> > >
>> > Yes, definitely. Please create a separate distribution for .deb packages
>> > derived from pre-releases.
>> Indeed. We shouldn't upgrade people who are expecting stable releases
>> to alpha versions.
> One more somewhat more constructive note:
> Oracle have been naming their VirtualBox packages such that they
> included the minor version in the NAME.
> So the package name would be openvpn-2.3 or openvpn-2.4 for us, which
> creates redundancy as the actual version is added (openvpn-2.3-2.3.12),
> but it prevents moving users between release branches.
> Alpha/beta releases and perhaps the early release candidates should
> still also be marked in a separate "unstable" 'distribution'.

That's a clever thing, and is also done in the Fedora/RHEL world too.
However there are some pitfalls which is needed to beware of.

You either need to

a) have the files installed in a way so they don't collide.  Then
   use some tools (like 'alternatives' in the Fedora/RHEL world) to
   switch between which version being system default


b) Have the package exclude each other to block both being installed
   at the same time.

kind regards,

David Sommerseth

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most 
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
Openvpn-devel mailing list

Reply via email to