>>>>> NP == Norbert Preining [2017-7-22] NP> Combining what you two said, it seems that the easiest way forward for NP> you (upstream) and not too disturbing for downstream to stop doing NP> whatever "tarball releases" you are doing, and we consider the NP> elpa releases as "the releases" which are properly tagged in git, and NP> people can build from there, or get the tarballs from the elpa NP> repository.
I've released Debian auctex 11.91-1 based on the AUCTeX release_11_91 Savannah tag. As far as Debian packaging is concerned tarball releases are no more necessary. @Mosè: I'd suggest you to sign future release tags with the same key you are using to sign the tarballs. NP> In this case, both the current stable release tags, as well as the NP> hopefully to be done elpa release tags can be used. I agree that NP> this would be good. >> > Apart from packaging, I think that AUCTeX users would benefit from >> > having clearly marked stable releases. NP> Well, I think this is what is happening by now, with release balls and NP> tags in git. It is more about the additional releases to elpa and how NP> they are reflected into stable releases, or whatever stable releases NP> will be. Yes, I agree. ATM I do not understand if elpa releases should be considered stable releases. I tend to think of them as bleeding edge releases, maybe suitable for Debian experimental, but unsuitable for the unstable->testing->stable cycle. WDYT? -- Thanks, Davide _______________________________________________ auctex mailing list auctex@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex