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

[Paul Gevers]

Hi Abou (and the others, please jump in if you have an opinion),

It seems that you never responded to my e-mail below, at least I can't 
find it.

On 27-02-16 11:35, Paul Gevers wrote:
> 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.

I am bringing this up again with the 1.6.2 release of Lazarus now. I 
really want to have the package suffix to have 1.6 instead of 1.6.2 as 
this is a bugfix only release.

Please shout if we need to keep discussing this, otherwise I will 
probably upload 1.6.2 with 1.6 suffix in a couple of days (to give you 
time to respond).

Paul