Re: ALSA package
At Wed, 20 Oct 1999 21:22:41 -0500,
Chris Cheney <ccheney@cheney.cx> wrote:
> > What is the differences of the packages between `libasound0.4' and
> > `libasound0.5'? The current libasound0.5 is development version, so
> > as you can see `apt-cache show libasound0.5', this depends on
> > alsa-base-unstable, and this revision is considered for releasing
> > libasound0.5, that is 0.4.1.c+pre0.5.0.1999..... (if libasound0.5 is
> > released, then the reversion will be 0.5.0). Currently, if you want to
> > use libasound0.5, you need to install alsa-base-unstable and
> > alsa-modules-unstable-<ver>. The process would be something like:
>
> why not call the cvs alsa 0.5.x libasound0.5-cvs and libasound0.5-dev-cvs.
> There will almost certainly be a alsa version 0.5.0 so the best thing
> imho is either not upload libasound0.5 or call it cvs so it won't require
> the future renumbering.
The main reason I adopt the versioning is that I don't want many forks of tha
pacakge. If I use the above versioning, we may have the following
package:
libasound0.5-cvs
libasound0.5-dev-cvs
|
|
+---------------------+
| |
(release) (forking)
libasound0.5 libasound0.6-cvs
libasound0.5-dev libasound0.6-dev-cvs
| |
| +-------------------+
| | |
(obsolete) (release) (forking)
libasound0.6 libasound0.7-cvs
libasound0.6-dev libasound0.7-dev-cvs
|
...
On the other hand, in the way I adopt:
libasound0.5
libasound0.5-dev
|
| (release)
+---------------------+
| |
| (branch)
| libasound0.6
| libasound0.6-dev
| |
(obsolete) | (release)
+-------------------+
| |
| (branch)
| libasound0.7
| libasound0.7-dev
| |
... ...
The former is that the live range of one package is so short that
many new pacakges will be upload frequently. As you know, The process
to install new packages is much slower than simple upload.
In addition, because dpkg can't handle 'Provides: with version',
packages that want to link libasound-0.5.so must have two shlibs for
'libasound0.5' and 'libasound0.5-cvs'
--
Reply to: