On Tuesday 01 June 2004 18.50, Pedro Kroger wrote: > * Erik Sandberg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > I have 2 suggestions here (which are more food for thought than > > opinions): 1. How about adding two metapackages 'lilypond-stable' and > > 'lilypond-unstable' (or whatever the names would be), depending on the > > latest > > > lilypondX.Y package? This would elimintate the drawback. > > that's a *very* good idea. > > > 2. How about using Mats' naming convention for all odd-numbered > > versions of > > > lilypond? > > I'm not sure if I'm familiar with Mats' convention, could you refresh > my memory?
I'll restate my complete suggestion then: Let Y even, Z odd. 1. packages lilypondX.Y contain stable versions of lilypond. 2. package lilypond-stable (or just lilypond) depends on the latest lilypondX.Y package. 3. package lilypond-unstable contains the latest unstable version. (this way we don't need any lilypondX.Z packages) > > It's not normal to want any other odd-numbered lilypond packages > > than the very latest unstable one. > > You are right. The possibility of installing more than a version in > the same series is true only with stable releases. > > Anyway, I'll also post these questions on the debian new developer > mailing list in case they have specific policies or strong preferences > in that regard. Sounds good. And before doing anything, please think through all dependencies twice. We don't want to need any dummy transition packages ever (such as lilypond1.3); there should maybe be a good way to obsolete all earlier packages. Erik _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
