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 ?
Cheers,
--
Donate to FSF France online : http://rate.affero.net/fsffrance/
Loic Dachary, 12 bd Magenta, 75010 Paris. Tel: 33 1 42 45 07 97
http://www.fsffrance.org/ http://www.dachary.org/loic/gpg.txt
