Hi, On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 09:10:15AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 05:17:12AM +0100, Robert McQueen wrote: > > direction of synchronisation with woody boxes. Accordingly we will need > > three source packages: > > * unison, which builds two transition binary packages "unison", which > > * unison-2.9.1, which builds two binary packages "unison-2.9.1", which > > * unison-2.9.20, which is the same except with the appropriate version, > > I suggest not to use version number neither in source package names nor > in binary package ones. It would delay archive entering due to the need > of manual processing and this would happen each time we will need to > upload a new unison version. Why don't simply use some symbolic names? > "unison" is fine for the transition package, for the other two dunno, > maybe unison-devel or unison-latest and unison-stable.
That means that unison-stable from debian n+1 would be compatible with unison-devel from debian n? That sounds quite odd... Nicolas