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 or b) Have the package exclude each other to block both being installed at the same time. -- kind regards, David Sommerseth
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 Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
