Tomas Cohen Arazi schreef op di 24-02-2015 om 15:55 [-0300]:
We still need to fix our packaging schema in which people are forced to jump into .0 releases because of our repository naming schema.
I propose we step forward and create "3.18", "3.20" and so on, instead of just "stable", "oldstable", etc. This way no one will be forced to jump into another major release.
What would make this easier is some form of automation. I hope, when I get the chance, to write some scripts that make the package building a bit easier, perhaps using a VM to do it or something.
"stable" "oldstable" and "testing" might still be usable as they are now, nothing prevents a .deb package from populating more than one slot. Or even of symbolic links...
The pocket has to go into the changelog, so it's not totally simple. However, it would be feasible with symlinks, which is how I did the more recent change. This leads me on to something I plan to do that will probably make this all a bit easier: separating the debian/ directory from the main repo. Probably into a totally separate repo. This may seem weird, but it has some advantages, such as being able to use the Debian pkg-perl tools to manage things, and keeping it more in line with how perl libraries and applications are done in general. I'm not sure yet if it'll be a partial or total split (i.e. should debian/scripts and debian/templates remain in the main Koha repo, maybe cron and init stuff too - thereby having just the strictly packaging things in the separate repo.) However, it'll make making slightly different twists on packages a whole lot easier, for example where there's just a changelog change, or dependency issues to handle a difference between ubuntu and debian, or something like that. It would also make easier automation and having more distinct pockets. Anyway, some time soon I hope to do some planning on this, rather than just dumping thoughts into an email. -- Robin Sheat Catalyst IT Ltd. ✆ +64 4 803 2204 GPG: 5FA7 4B49 1E4D CAA4 4C38 8505 77F5 B724 F871 3BDF