Hello, 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. > > > Unison has a command-line option to specify a versioned binary to use on > > the remote end of the connection, so I believe this packaging and naming > > scheme will allow concurrent installation of all necessary versions of > > unison to, eg, synchronise between a sid machine with 2.9.1-gtk and a > > Why not simply using the debian alternative system with a symbolic name > of unison and the usual versioned binary names (e.g. unison-2.9.1, > unison-2.9.20)? I think is more standard and users can tune which > default version they want to use. >
I second your proposition... We must also think that we will produce, only one version release of package ( ie only producing unison-2.9.1, unison-2.9.20... regarding the package unison ). So we will need to manually remove any package unison-XXX. Using unison-stable, unison-latest is to my mind the best approach. Kind regard Sylvain Le Gall
