Well, I actually was only referring to versioned directories. I completely agree with you. Actually I hadn't thought about it in the way you describe it, and it indeed doesn't make sense.
We then only have to make sure we keep DTDs and stylesheets in sync, but I consider that a part of keeping the toolchain working. So, we deviate from the LSB in two points: - allowing both versioned and unversioned directories - no minor version numbering in the package name Thanks, Ardo Adam Di Carlo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Ardo van Rangelrooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Yes, as far as I'm concerned we're to use the recommended versioning > > scheme with all the advantages of multiple version installed at the > > same time you mentioned. Also we're supporting your hybrid setup for > > packages where it makes more (practical) sense to do so. Versioning > > is fine, but if it becomes a hassle then by all means don't use it. > > This I leave to the judgement of the package maintainers. If in the > > future it makes us incompatible wit other distro's (and the LSB) > > then we can always drop it and allow only versioned directories. > > We're only at the beginning of the new setup and I don't mind playing > > around with both schemes to see how things work out. > > As I said before, I don't mind versioned directories, but I object to > versioning the packages -- at least, one package for every minor > version seems idiotic. > > I can understand, say, a version of docbook DTDs for major versions, > such a 3.x, 4.x, etc. I cannot see why it makes sense for > docbook-xsl-stylesheets. So what, there are different bugs in > different versions. This stuff isn't very stable yet! Is that any > good reason to promote the endless bloat of one package for every > minor version of a package? Users can put packages on hold if they > want to stick with a particular version. > > It seems like that notion is contrary to the Debian way. I defy you > to point to *one* other package in debian which has a new version for > every minor update of the software. There isn't any. > > I beg you to keep in mind how difficult it is to actually remove > packges from Debian. Suppose you decide that 1.40 is a really good > stable version, and that use of the older 1.29 version is no longer > needed. So you want the archive maintainer to delete the old > versions. Fine -- but there are 11 of them by now. And it takes > around a year for the archive maintainers to get to that. By then, > there are 40 versions or more. > > I ask again: do we really want docbook-xls-stylesheets-1.29, > docbook-xls-stylesheets-1.30, docbook-xls-stylesheets-1.31, > docbook-xls-stylesheets-1.32, docbook-xls-stylesheets-1.33 in Debian? > > I really feel strongly about the stupidity of this. If you guys > *still* think we need to do this (versioned packages for every minor > update), we need to get archive maitnainer approval since they may > reject the scheme. > > > About the upgrades, that' a good question. To be honest I've no idea > > whether that's useful. I can imagine that users don't care about what > > version they're running as long as it works, but I've no idea that's > > what docbook users do as normal practice. This is probably also one > > of those things we're to see how it works out. > > This is precisely why we shoudln't have another packge name for every > minor version. > > To restate -- I am *not* against versioning for major verisons, such > as the docbook DTD 3.1, 4.0, 4.1, or something. This makes good > compatability sense. But to do that for the stylesheets, when poeple > aren't addressing stylesheet FPIs directly with versions, makes little > to no sense. Perl 5.006, perl 5.005, is another example. But we > don't have versioned perl directories for every minor release > (5.005_03, etc). > > That doesn't mean we couldn't have the versioned > /usr/share/sgml/... directory however, and a symlink to that. It jsut > means there would only be 1 installed at any given time. > > People may object: > > Well, verison 1.29 works for document X, and 1.30 works for > document Y, so I need both. > > I would counter that this means the upstream version is unstable and > buggy and people should work with the upstream maintaint to get the > software to be more robust. > > Consider another problem. Suppoes you find a bug in your maintainer > scripts which has been around for a while. Suddenly you'll have to > fix and re-upload X differernt copies of docbook-xsl-stylesheets! > > -- > .....Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/> > -- Ardo van Rangelrooij home email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] home page: http://people.debian.org/~ardo PGP fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9
