On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 07:50:52PM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote:
> * Anuradha Weeraman [2021-09-11 21:37]:
> https://wiki.debian.org/RenamingPackages has a few good suggestions.
> Maybe the transition package method would be appropriate here?
> You could probably put the transitional package into the
* Anuradha Weeraman [2021-09-11 21:37]:
However, I feel that given ksh93u+ is unmaintained upstream, existing
users of src:ksh stands to gain from the defect fixes and improvements
made without having to switch to a new package given that ksh93u+m
is maintaining the same code base that would hav
On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 10:16:00AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> Hmm. If the project refers to itself as 93u+m does it make sense to package
> it as ksh instead of something like ksh93u+m? This reminds me of when debian
> first packaged openssh as "ssh" because that's what the predecessor package
>
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 10:04:08PM +0530, Anuradha Weeraman wrote:
> 2) If you do go ahead with switching to the community distribution, then
> "93u+m" is part of the name, not the version number, so I'd suggest:
[...]
Correction: rushed the last email, I meant to say that I agree that 93u+m
is
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 07:37:55PM +0530, Anuradha Weeraman wrote:
> ksh93u+m was a reboot attempt by Martijn Dekker et al. to build upon
> the last stable 93u+ release (not on v2020, apart from some cherry
> picked patches). This work has been taking place for over a year at this
> point, with the
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 07:37:55PM +0530, Anuradha Weeraman wrote:
> > 2) If you do go ahead with switching to the community distribution, then
> > "93u+m" is part of the name, not the version number, so I'd suggest:
> >
> > 1:1.0.0~beta.1-1
>
> It does make sense to differentiate with the 93u+m
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 02:25:32PM +0100, Phil Morrell wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 05:18:13PM +0530, Anuradha Weeraman wrote:
> Then there appears to be this 93u+m project publishing essentially v2020
> as 1.0.0 beta, tagged as 'v1.0.0-beta.1'. It's release notes say "This
> new fork is called
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 05:18:13PM +0530, Anuradha Weeraman wrote:
> As a result of a revert of v2020 of ksh last year, the current version
> on sid for ksh is as follows:
>
> 2020.0.0+really93u+20120801-10
>
> With the next upgrade, we're looking to move to the 93u+m community
> maintained distr
Hi
As a result of a revert of v2020 of ksh last year, the current version
on sid for ksh is as follows:
2020.0.0+really93u+20120801-10
With the next upgrade, we're looking to move to the 93u+m community
maintained distribution that has a different versioning scheme (starting
with 1.0.0-beta.1).
9 matches
Mail list logo
