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

[Abou Al Montacir]

Hi Paul,
Personally I'd like to have on my computer both versions, and I do keep all
Lazarus versions as sometimes you want to reproduce the very same binary you
already released for your own SW.
I hope this will continue to be possible.
On Fri, 2016-11-18 at 15:33 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> 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-20
> > > > 131007/000060.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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pkg-pascal-devel mailing list
> Pkg-pascal-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-pascal-devel
-- 
Cheers,
Abou Al Montacir
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-pascal-devel/attachments/20161120/a64c5fe5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-pascal-devel/attachments/20161120/a64c5fe5/attachment.sig>