Re: Version numbering and package name?

Peter T. Breuer wrote:

>"Also sprach Bas van Schaik:"
>  
>
>>While preparing to package enbd for Debian, I ran in to two
>>non-technical problems/questions:
>>
>>- why is the source tar called "nbd", this is rather confusing and
>>causes a name clash with the original nbd
>>    
>>
>
>Is it? On the ftp server both names are given:
>
>...
>
>I guess I could do something about renaming the directory in the
>archive first before packing. Is that the problem? 
>  
>
That's sounds like a good idea!

>>- what's the exact idea behind the version numbering? 2.4.32 makes me
>>    
>>
>
>2.4.32 is 32nd in the 2.4 major release. I see that the scheme went
>
>   1.0.*
>   1.1.*
>   1.2.*
>   1.3.*
>   2.1.*
>   2.2.*
>   2.3.*
>   2.4.*
>
>I'll make 2.4.33 final soon. I generally work ON a development release
>(as 2.4.33 has been) without making a new package for it, just flushing
>the snapshot to the archive server, where it is always packaged as, for
>example, 2.4.33pre, without any indication other than the "pre" that (a)
>it may change from day to day, and (b) is not the same as yesterday
>despite not having a date as part of the release name. People know that
>the pre is variable.
>
>That's because I have very little space. I would end up with 365
>releases a year if the pre was numbered by date.
>
>A packaging scheme for debian would be to release the stable package
>(here 2.4.32, soon to be 2.4.33) as 2.4.x, and release the unstable
>or testing package as 2.4.Xpre-date.
>  
>
OK, that's clear to me now. But I still keep thinking that naming a
package 2.4.33 implies that it's only usable on the kernel 2.4 tree, but
if I get you right (so, correct me if I'm wrong!) this naming scheme is
just accidentally the same as the kernel naming scheme. However, I'll
follow your naming scheme for the Debian packages, of course.
However, I don't plan on releasing development versions in Debian,
unless a development package fixes a major bug or something. Versions
will be called "2.4.32", followed by "2.4.33" (or, of course "2.4.32-2"
when the upstream source hasn't changed).
Anyway, thanks for clearing up some things. I'll test the first packages
on my own systems soon and not long after that I'll get them uploaded to
Debian unstable.

Regards,

--Bas