On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Josh Triplett <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 01:36:21AM -0700, Vincent Cheng wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Josh Triplett <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Package: supertux >> > Version: 0.1.3-3 >> > Severity: wishlist >> > >> > The supertux 0.3.x series has been in experimental for years now. Any >> > reason not to upload it to unstable? >> >> No reason, aside from that's the state the package was in when I first >> adopted supertux. >> >> If we were to change this, I'd be more inclined to go with Ubuntu's >> approach here, i.e. package both and let users have the choice to >> install one or both at the same time. In Ubuntu, they have >> src:supertux which builds binary packages supertux and supertux-data >> (from the 0.3.x branch), and src:supertux-stable which builds binary >> packages supertux-stable and supertux-data-stable (from the 0.1.x >> branch). No file conflicts are introduced (supertux 0.3.x installs >> /usr/games/supertux2, whereas supertux 0.1.x installs >> /usr/games/supertux). > > What's the rationale for maintaining both branches, rather than just > dropping the 0.1.x series completely?
Because upstream considers the 0.1.x series to be "stable", and 0.3.x as the "unstable" development branch. I think that it's time to push users to the 0.3.x series by default (that would be what "apt-get install supertux" pulls in by default in sid with this change), but leave 0.1.x available to users as an option. Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
