Andreas Metzler <[email protected]> writes: > On 2022-10-07 Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] >> One question is about version numbers.. it should probably have its own >> version number, right? Would starting at 0.0.0 be a problem for >> packaging, or should we start with 3.7.8 (upstream gnutls version) and >> then count upwards (separate from GnuTLS versions) from there? I >> prefer starting with 0.0.0 and using semantic versioning from the >> start. > > We my Debian hat on: Pretty pretty please use a version number > 3.7.8 > to allow a simple upgrade from guile-gnutls 3.7.8 to the new separate > version. (Instead of requiring fiddling and ugliness with empty > transition packages or epoch.)
Okay that works, and I think we should make a guile-gnutls 3.7.8 release with as little non-build changes as possible. From then on, the versioning is independent of GnuTLS -- and I think it would be nice to do a quick 4.0.0 to establish a new base to stand on for guile-gnutls. > Restarting version also imho does not make sense: Afaiui the next > guile-gnutls will not be something totaly new but essentially 3.7.8 > with a changed README. The version number should reflect that. Or do you > envision a rename, too? There has never been a source package 'guile-gnutls' before, so what version we use should not matter. If it makes Debian packaging upgrades easier for the _binary_ guile-gnutls package if we start on 3.7.8, that seems like a weak but sufficient argument for doing it (unless there is any arguments against using 3.7.8, which I don't see currently). /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnutls-help mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnutls-help
