[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: debian package status

From: Erik Sandberg
Subject: Re: debian package status
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 20:07:45 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.6.2

On Tuesday 01 June 2004 18.50, Pedro Kroger wrote:
> * Erik Sandberg (address@hidden) wrote:
> > I have 2 suggestions here (which are more food for thought than
> > opinions): 1. How about adding two metapackages 'lilypond-stable' and
> > 'lilypond-unstable' (or whatever the names would be), depending on the
> latest
> > lilypondX.Y package? This would elimintate the drawback.
> that's a *very* good idea.
> > 2. How about using Mats' naming convention for all odd-numbered
> versions of
> > lilypond?
> I'm not sure if I'm familiar with Mats' convention, could you refresh
> my memory?

I'll restate my complete suggestion then:
Let Y even, Z odd.
1. packages lilypondX.Y contain stable versions of lilypond.
2. package lilypond-stable (or just lilypond) depends on the latest 
lilypondX.Y package.
3. package lilypond-unstable contains the latest unstable version.
(this way we don't need any lilypondX.Z packages)

> > It's not normal to want any other odd-numbered lilypond packages
> > than the very latest unstable one.
> You are right. The possibility of installing more than a version in
> the same series is true only with stable releases.
> Anyway, I'll also post these questions on the debian new developer
> mailing list in case they have specific policies or strong preferences
> in that regard.

Sounds good. And before doing anything, please think through all dependencies 
twice. We don't want to need any dummy transition packages ever (such as 
lilypond1.3); there should maybe be a good way to obsolete all earlier 


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]