On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:18:25AM +0200, Markus Wanner wrote:
> On 06/26/2013 11:11 AM, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > please provide the correct required tags to upstream/debian branches at
> > every
> > new release.
> Thanks, good point. I simply didn't think about that.
> In a similar vein: is it okay to create beta branches? Maybe
> 'upstream-beta' and 'beta' to start packaging on postgis-2.1 (or any
> other beta release in the future)?
Yes, what ever branch can be created, the only condition is creating
a clear and evident namespace for all of them.
> > About libgdal-dev versus libgdal1-dev, the proper dependency is libgdal-dev,
> > the old libgdal1-dev should be considered only for back-compatibility.
> > In this specific case I would use something like
> > libgdal-dev | libgdal1-dev
> > until the old releases still will be considered for backports.
> The reasoning behind that was that postgis-2.0 will hardly ever be
> compatible to a libgdal2-dev.
What ever will be the new API, we will have to prepare a proper transition
plan, and using a different -dev package will hardly be the right answer.
The old name with versioning is still around since time when a few third
parties programs used the C++ interface.
> > Ratio: we will neve provide multiple versions of gdal development packages,
> > so using a versioned name is pointless and inconsistent.
> I see. Will change to the proposed variant above.
> Pkg-grass-devel mailing list
Francesco P. Lovergine
Pkg-grass-devel mailing list