"Philip McGrath" <phi...@philipmcgrath.com> writes: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2024, at 7:50 PM, Divya Ranjan wrote: > > > I think it would be appropriate if each "next" package had a code comment, > or perhaps an > addendum to its package description, describing how it relates to the main > packaged version. > > I think the whole "next" category is problematic. Why not just have a > version number of that > package that's different from the "main" one? So instead of emacs-next have > emacs-30.0.9 or > whatever. At least here the choice of arbitrariness is visible. A "next" > makes no sense. > > One problem with this is that tools resolve a bare package name like "emacs" > to the package with > that name with the greatest version. So if, for example, the base package is > following a LTS channel, > or if there's a reason to package a pre-release version, adding "-next" to > the name ensures that users > don't accidentally end up with a newer-than-recommended version.
But that should be handled differently I believe. Since this only creates confusion. Can there be a way to sort of "pin" the release version to the namespace "emacs" and other versions to be emacs-x.x. Or at least remove the arbitrariness of emacs-next and keep it updated to the master like emacs-git in Arch. Regards, -- Divya Ranjan, Philosophy, Mathematics, Libre Software.
