On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Rainer M Krug <r.m.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > OK - I would suggest then the following naming of the binaries: > lyx --- latest stable release of lyx (updates the ubuntu installation) > The following installations should be compiled with version suffix to enable > parallel installation: > lyx-a.b --- for the latest stable release of a.b.x -- version suffix a.b > These will stay in the ppa due to compatibility issues. > lyx-a.b-svn --- for daily / regular builds of BANCH_a_b_X -- version suffix > a.b-svn > lyx-a.b-alpha --- for alpha releases of --- which version suffix? > lyx-a.b-beta --- for beta releases --- which version suffix? > lyx-a.b-rc --- for release candidates --- which version suffix? > All these could go into one ppa (simply named lyx to avoid the stable / > unstable question?) > Why not the following PPAs: LyX Releases and LyX Daily?
> As mentioned before, the highly unstable (and not at users but at developers > / early testers aimed) daily trunc build, should go into a separate ppa to > avoid accidental installation from the lyx main ppa. > Does that sound like a reasonable and useful setup? > This all makes sense to me. I would only insist in grouping lyx-a.b-svn with lyx-a.b-trunk. As much as latest branch would usually be more stable than the latest stable release, the branch could easily contain nasty regressions: it is still by definition unreleased code. We wouldn't want to encourage people using lyx-a.b-svn over lyx. And this way we can have a PPA for daily builds and one for releases. But that's possibly just my preference. Regards Liviu
