asterisk 1.2.0-0beta1

[Tzafrir Cohen]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 07:16:52AM +0100, Mark Purcell wrote:
> On Monday 10 October 2005 09:28, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> [...]
> > So what have we gained here?
> 
> The plan is to have a documented road map, so we have agreement as to which 
> version number comes next..
> 
> [...]
> > So previously someone has installed packages from experimental they only
> > ineeded to downgrade manually zaptel and libpri. Now they are forced to
> > manually downgrade Asterisk as well.
> 
> No there is no need to manually downgrade asterisk, and with the cvs, there is 
> no need to manually downgrade zaptel nor libpri..
> 
> > Not to mention the problematic version string (right?).
> 
> I think we have that sorted now.

A reminder:

  $ dpkg --compare-versions 1:1.2.0-0beta1-1 gt 1:1.2.0-1 && echo greater
  greater

There may not be a problem with Asterisk, but there is with libpri and
with zaptel. Zaptel is independent of Asterisk, but libpri has to be of
the same version.

> 
> > I think I'll go ahead with 1.1.9 for my current 1.2 tarballs, so I won't
> > force more manual downgrades that I have to.

Took me longer than I have expected:

  deb     http://rapid.dotsrc.org/ experimental/
  deb-src http://rapid.dotsrc.org/ experimental/

> 
> Problem is we can't upload 1.1.9 into experimental for libpri nor zaptel.

But those exactly will for manual downgrades later on.

> 
> The proposed numbering scheme takes ensures we don't have to do any manual 
> downgrades.  If we proceed without and agreed numbering roadmap, we proably 
> will require manual downgrades..

I still fail to see how

> >
> > And in case I'll change my mind, I can always upgrade from them to
> > 1.2.0-something :-)

Currently svn-buildpackage works with my local working copy. But it
seems I don't yet agree with you on the versioning and such. Send you
the patch?

-- 
Tzafrir Cohen     icq#16849755  +972-50-7952406
tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com  http://www.xorcom.com