Re: RFC/ITP: everybuddy-cvs
Ben == Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ben On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 04:06:33PM +, michael d. ivey wrote: I started making personal debs of the everybuddy CVS snapshots because EB releases tend to lag pretty far behind the code in CVS. I called my package ebsnap, and made it conflict with everybuddy. I put it on my site, and that was that. Now, I've adopted everybuddy and gotten through the NM process. I'd like to add the CVS version to unstable...but I don't know what to call it. My current idea is everybuddy-cvs, and make it conflict with everybuddy, and conflict/replace ebsnap, for the people who may have downloaded ebsnap. Is that the correct way to proceed? I'll be doing the rename and the upload sometime early next week. Ben Keep it the same name. Woody is unstable right now, there are Ben a lot of packages that are pre-release just for the sake of Ben testing and working out bugs. So, IMO, keep it the same name, Ben and version it appropriately. Also might add This is a CVS Ben build at the bottom of the description. Sorry, but that is *wrong*. What happens when we release and everybuddy is still not stable? Do we pull it out if it's too unstable? Why, of course we will. Which would leave our users w/o everybuddy. Or we could pull it, and replace it with the last stable... oops, the version number will be lower. So we'd need an epoch. Very bad. I've lobbied Clint Adams for doing both a zsh 3.0 and a 3.1 package. I wouldn't want to see other packages going that unstable is the greatest, fuck the users who want bulletproof stable. I think it's obvious I feel strongly about this... Ben Note, you can't break much anyway. I'm about ready to upload Ben glibc 2.1.93 (pre-2.2) to woody anyway, so if anything is Ben going to break, it's most likely going to be my fault :) Thanks for the warning. ;-) [1] as I've just now realized, he's doing three: zsh30 for the stable 3.0.x series, zsh for the devel series, and zsh-beta apparently for CVS snapshots. I'd rather have zsh be 3.0.x and zsh-unstable for 3.1.x... but I guess one can't have everything ;-) -- Jürgen A. Erhard[EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: (GERMANY) 0721 27326 MARS: http://members.tripod.com/Juergen_Erhard/mars_index.html Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org) pros do it for money -- amateurs out of love. pgpAg3MCxhT8I.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFC/ITP: everybuddy-cvs
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 11:18:54PM +0200, J?rgen A. Erhard wrote: Ben == Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ben On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 04:06:33PM +, michael d. ivey wrote: I started making personal debs of the everybuddy CVS snapshots because EB releases tend to lag pretty far behind the code in CVS. I called my package ebsnap, and made it conflict with everybuddy. I put it on my site, and that was that. Now, I've adopted everybuddy and gotten through the NM process. I'd like to add the CVS version to unstable...but I don't know what to call it. My current idea is everybuddy-cvs, and make it conflict with everybuddy, and conflict/replace ebsnap, for the people who may have downloaded ebsnap. Is that the correct way to proceed? I'll be doing the rename and the upload sometime early next week. Ben Keep it the same name. Woody is unstable right now, there are Ben a lot of packages that are pre-release just for the sake of Ben testing and working out bugs. So, IMO, keep it the same name, Ben and version it appropriately. Also might add This is a CVS Ben build at the bottom of the description. Sorry, but that is *wrong*. What happens when we release and everybuddy is still not stable? Do we pull it out if it's too unstable? Why, of course we will. Which would leave our users w/o everybuddy. Or we could pull it, and replace it with the last stable... oops, the version number will be lower. So we'd need an epoch. Very bad. I've lobbied Clint Adams for doing both a zsh 3.0 and a 3.1 package. I wouldn't want to see other packages going that unstable is the greatest, fuck the users who want bulletproof stable. I think it's obvious I feel strongly about this... If people want stable, they can use the stable distribution. We call it unstable for a reason. -- ---===-=-==-=---==-=-- / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC/ITP: everybuddy-cvs
michael d. ivey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My current idea is everybuddy-cvs, and make it conflict with everybuddy, and conflict/replace ebsnap, for the people who may have downloaded ebsnap. Is that the correct way to proceed? People using unofficial packages should be aware about the dificulties. So I wouldn't mention the unofficial packages in control files for official Debian packages. I also don't like the idea of having special packages for cvs-versions of software. It is cruft. Just my 0.02 of whatever currency you prefere. -- Peter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC/ITP: everybuddy-cvs
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 06:24:55PM +0200, Peter Makholm wrote: People using unofficial packages should be aware about the dificulties. So I wouldn't mention the unofficial packages in control files for official Debian packages. OK. I'll mention it on the website for the unofficial ones. I also don't like the idea of having special packages for cvs-versions of software. It is cruft. In this case, the CVS version is usually pretty far ahead of released, and is just as stable. Do you think I should switch the main package to using CVS code? Or just continue to do my unofficial CVS packages and have the official ones be the released version? I know the EB authors would prefer that we not switch to CVS code, so I think that's a bad idea...but on the other hand, the CVS code would be a better package for some debian users. -- michael d. ivey[McQ] : It is a miracle that curiosity survives [EMAIL PROTECTED] : formal education. http://gweezlebur.com/~ivey/ : -- Albert Einstein encrypted email preferred : -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC/ITP: everybuddy-cvs
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 04:06:33PM +, michael d. ivey wrote: I started making personal debs of the everybuddy CVS snapshots because EB releases tend to lag pretty far behind the code in CVS. I called my package ebsnap, and made it conflict with everybuddy. I put it on my site, and that was that. Now, I've adopted everybuddy and gotten through the NM process. I'd like to add the CVS version to unstable...but I don't know what to call it. My current idea is everybuddy-cvs, and make it conflict with everybuddy, and conflict/replace ebsnap, for the people who may have downloaded ebsnap. Is that the correct way to proceed? I'll be doing the rename and the upload sometime early next week. Keep it the same name. Woody is unstable right now, there are a lot of packages that are pre-release just for the sake of testing and working out bugs. So, IMO, keep it the same name, and version it appropriately. Also might add This is a CVS build at the bottom of the description. Note, you can't break much anyway. I'm about ready to upload glibc 2.1.93 (pre-2.2) to woody anyway, so if anything is going to break, it's most likely going to be my fault :) -- ---===-=-==-=---==-=-- / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC/ITP: everybuddy-cvs
michael d. ivey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I started making personal debs of the everybuddy CVS snapshots because EB releases tend to lag pretty far behind the code in CVS. I called my package ebsnap, and made it conflict with everybuddy. I put it on my site, and that was that. Now, I've adopted everybuddy and gotten through the NM process. I'd like to add the CVS version to unstable...but I don't know what to call it. My current idea is everybuddy-cvs, and make it conflict with everybuddy, and conflict/replace ebsnap, for the people who may have downloaded ebsnap. Is that the correct way to proceed? I would keep the same name for both the released and CVS versions, but upload the released version to unstable and the CVS version to project/experimental. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
