[pkg-wine-party] Looking for feedback: changing the -unstable in wine-unstable

Scott Leggett scott at sl.id.au
Wed Apr 16 00:30:39 UTC 2014

On 14/04/14 11:00, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> Hey everyone,
> I think the name of the package needs to change prior to ending up in
> testing/stable.

Hi Michael,

> I've also thought about version numbers (like plain old 1.7), but that
> means a trip to new for every new major version.  That doesn't happen
> to often, but it's sufficiently annoying that I would prefer to avoid
> it.

This is probably best avoided since, in addition to extra work for you,
it requires knowledge of the development model used by upstream to
decide which package to install. Plus the upstream development model may
change at some time in the future, forcing package naming to change too.

> I've also thought about swapping the naming of two wine packages to
> end up with wine-stable and wine, but that might be too disruptive.

I think that this probably is too disruptive, and surprising behaviour
for users. Upstream recommended usage is to try your app using the
stable version, and only upgrade if you run into issues [0].

As for naming, I think that "wine" and "wine-development" are accurate
and unambiguous. This also has the benefit of matching upstream
terminology. The length of the names seems fairly unimportant - this is
why we have tab completion! :)

Anyway, from an appreciative user, thanks for your work on packaging wine!

Scott Leggett.

[0] http://wiki.winehq.org/FAQ#head-0bae04b4126dffb8a08bf020982badacb6f367ff

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-wine-party/attachments/20140416/1d09e946/attachment.sig>

More information about the pkg-wine-party mailing list