[Debian-med-packaging] What version of PHyML should be distributed by Debian

Andreas Tille andreas at an3as.eu
Thu Mar 19 08:18:02 UTC 2015

Hi Stephane,

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 08:35:10PM +1300, Stephane Guindon wrote:
> Dear Andreas,
> I must admit I am not familiar with Github's approach of versionning,
> hence my own ad-hoc technique.

Ahh.  While I do not release own code at Github and can't tell from own
experience I'd assume that this also creates more work for you when
deriving from established procedures and may be some users might miss
your releases.  We had a similar case for idba and so I asked for help
on our usual Debian channel.  May be this answer is also interesting
for you:


If I were you I would try to follow this advise.  Feel free to ask for
more detailed advise if this thread on the mailing list might leave
some open questions.

Please tell me what you think to enable me adjusting the version
detection mechanism in Debian to your decision so we can make sure to
always provide our users with the code you consider appropriate.

> The most suitable version of PhyML is probably the Development one.
> It should be fairly stable.

OK, thanks for the clarification.  Lots of other authors are using some
version scheme which does express this.  Stable versions usually have a
new major version number while a minor version number could be a hint
that something not so important has changed.  If I try to "code" this
principle into the available PHyML releases, I'd tag

   20120412   --> 1.0  (since it has the name "stable")
   20131112   --> 1.1  (since it has the name "patch")
   20140223   --> 1.9  (since you declare it "development" perhaps
                        targeting at some 2.0)

All tags might be stable enough for end users.  Does this interpretation
of your releases make sense?

Kind regards 


More information about the Debian-med-packaging mailing list