[Pkg-pascal-devel] Lazarus (and fpc) package NAME versioning [Was Re: Lazarus 1.2.2]

[Paul Gevers]

Hi all,

Hmm, it seems like I never responded to the e-mail below, but it pops up
again due to the "mistake" of upstream to name the 1.6.0 release
candidate 1.6rc instead of 1.6.0rc and me not noticing.

On 29-04-14 19:34, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 08:14 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
>> On 29-04-14 06:55, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
>>>> Just to confirm, we agreed to package this with the 1.2 suffix, right?
>>> No, this is a new upstream release, so it should take its own number 1.2.2.

Remember, I am NOT talking about the version number of the package, I am
ONLY talking about the suffix of the package NAME.

>> We had this discussion before [1], and I interpreted your words as, for
>> fpc patch level is really a new release, for Lazarus, we can consider a
>> patch level update as a just that, a patch level update. I looked at the
>> list of changes, but this really looks like a bug-fix release to me. I
>> rather not want to make new packages just for a bug fix.
>>
>> [1]
>> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-pascal-devel/Week-of-Mon-20131007/000060.html
> Yes indeed, it is more complicated for FPC than for Lazarus, but I still
> continue thinking this is a new upstream release and as stated int he
> link above it could contain new features.

Sure. But the point is, how much will people want/need to install both
versions alongside each other. In Debian proper, they ONLY exist in
unstable together for as long as it takes to migrate the newer version
to testing, so that may be limited to 5 days only. Debian actually just
migrates to the new version. It is a courtesy to the users that the old
version will not be pulled under there feet. Now do we need to have that
courtesy on the "patch" level or on the "minor" level. I really don't
appreciate the concept of "new upstream release is new package name"
because it is very un-Debian. We only should do that if we believe it is
really in the users interest.

>> I also started on this, and it is trivial. I was working on getting the
>> package suffix to be 1.2 but if you really insist we need to get 1.2.2
>> suffix, we really should re-upload 1.2 to not have to wait on the
>> package in NEW to pass it. We have no control on that.
> Please don't do. i don't like to have Debian versions different from
> upstream ones. Also I don't expect users to understand this.

I am not sure if we mean the same thing here. Users should really look
at the package version number to determine the version number, not at
the package name, so I don't think that is a good reason on its own.
Side note: upstream only ships one deb file, lazarus (and even the
lazarus project ships one fpc deb, called just fpc). So upstream doesn't
care for the package name to contain the number. We are already serving
the users a much better experience with co-installation than upstream.

Paul

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-pascal-devel/attachments/20160227/7d194036/attachment.sig>