Santiago Vila writes: > Current glibc_2.0.7pre1-3 should have been packaged for experimental, > since it is not released software.
Yes. I guess most "pre" releases should, so I feel as quite bad to add epoch to (un)stable where they will be useless. > Something like [...] "2.0.6.pre2.0.7-3" would have been a better If it's only for experimental, it should be a good idea. > name (I use procmail_3.10.7 for procmail-3.11pre7). I'm against that as it makes the version look like a bugfix release, not a beta or alpha ! > Once we already have 2.0.7pre1-3, I would not mind at all having to > install final 2.0.7 by hand, without ugly epochs or "rel" things. I do care for ease of use. You'll note I added support for experimental in dpkg-ftp ; that's not to suggest behaviour that will fool it ;) > We should remember that most people have *not* upgraded to hamm yet. Yes, but developpers are usally *heavily* using the unstable tree, so we should have a little consideration for ourselves ;) I'd suggest to add a paragraph in the policy or packaging manual, recommending for "pre" releases: * to put them in experimental only, unless otherwise necessary * to use the "2.0.6.pre2.0.7-3" style of numbering, for homogeneity purpose -- Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Stop making M$-Bill richer & richer, alt-email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | support Debian GNU/Linux: debian-email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | more powerful, more stable ! http://www.a2points.com/homepage/3475232 | Check <http://www.debian.org/>
