Am Montag, 25. Oktober 2004 13:39 schrieb Loic Dachary: > Michael Koch writes: > > Am Montag, 25. Oktober 2004 12:30 schrieb Loic Dachary: > > > Michael Koch writes: > > > > Would it be an idea for you to not use a cal3d-cvs package > > > > and directly use the normal cal3d package and update it to > > > > some recent CVS thats known to work. I don't want such a > > > > package in sarge/testing yet but this should be easy to > > > > handle. As you are a cal3d developer you could easily fix > > > > reported bugs in CVS and we could update the package then. > > > > This will benefit all users of cal3d I think. > > > > > > > > What do you think about this ? > > > > > > If the cal3d package is based on CVS AND has a release number > > > (such as 0.9.1 or 0.9.2), how can people know that it comes > > > from the CVS at a given date ? Also I think this would > > > contradict the debian policy for naming CVS based packages. > > > > > > Maybe I misunderstood you ? > > > > extra cvs packages are normally only made when a released > > version has to be in the archive and CVS has some major > > improvemnts. IMO keeping two versions in the archive is bloat in > > this case (not because of size). We need only one version of > > cal3d and all apps should use the best version they can get. As > > you said CVS has less bugs and some speed improvements. > > > > We can name the package like this: > > > > 0.9.1+cvs20041025 > > > > That is easily handable and all users see at first look that it > > includes CVS improvements. > > I'm Ok with this. Now we have to figure out which version the > library should have for this package. Do you have a preference or a > suggestion ?
Do you mean package version or library version (aka soname) ? For the first look above. For the second feel free to choose a unique one. Michael -- Homepage: http://www.worldforge.org/