On Oct 13, 2009, at 15:20, Graham Cobb wrote: > On Tuesday 13 October 2009 13:46:25 Cornelius Hald wrote: >> Sorry to be so persistent, but I still don´t understand why I should >> have two packages. > > You are probably right that the root cause of the problem is that we > are using > extras-devel for two different purposes: it is a test area for very > early > versions of packages as well an important step on the way for > packages trying > to get to the users. Sometime we may have to split that up. > > However, at the moment, your requirement is unusual. The current > rules > (autobuilder checks that it is building a newer version, and the > promotion > interface only shows the latest version) help prevent lots of > mistakes, > particularly by people who are not too familiar with packaging. I > would not > want to change them. > > So, I understand what you are trying to do and why but I think the > current > rules do more good than harm. You seem to have a few options: (i) > only use > extras-devel once you are close to calling a new version stable and > are > unlikely to do any more updates to the previous version (you could > use a > private repository, like I still do for the daily builds from SVN > for my > software), (ii) use different package names (upgrades should work if > you are > using Conflicts: & Replaces:), (iii) hack with version numbers using > epochs. > > Let's see how many packages find this a problem before we look at > changing > anything.
I strongly second Graham's point of view on this. Changing anything in the build system has a ripple effect on all packages and we can't afford a complete set of repository rebuilds at this point in time. Hopefully conforming to the current requirements of the build system, i.e. packages with a newer version get built, older packages do not, is not too burdensome. Jeremiah _______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list maemo-developers@maemo.org https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
