On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 2:59 AM, Francesc Alted<fal...@pytables.org> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > A Thursday 25 June 2009 01:08:34 Peter Alexander escrigué: >> Hi Francesc, >> >> Would it be possible for you to consider using a more conventional >> package naming schema for beta/alpha/rc packages. It makes it a little >> more difficult for the downstream packagers. Conventionally, I >> believe, a beta package is listed as less then the milestone package >> number. So for instance instead of tables-2.2b1, something in like >> tables-2.1.9xxx could be used and not mess up the chronological order >> for package maintainers. >> >> At least that's my preference and probably works for all package systems. > > I see your point. However, as I see this issue, beta releases are just meant > for beta testers, not for making into a distribution package. In fact, I'm > following the same convention than Python itself, and I think it works pretty > well for most uses. >
I understand. It's not a show stopper just a little unusual to me. I can manage it here for Gentoo, but I have to rename it is all. Cutting edge packages with nice test suites are always welcome at gentoo testing... one way or the other. Thanks again. >> As always Francesc thanks for pytables. > > You are welcome! > > -- > Francesc Alted > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Pytables-users mailing list > Pytables-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pytables-users > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Pytables-users mailing list Pytables-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pytables-users
