Re: debian package status

[Pedro Kroger]

* Erik Sandberg (address@hidden) wrote:
> Let Y even, Z odd.
> 1. packages lilypondX.Y contain stable versions of lilypond.
> 2. package lilypond-stable (or just lilypond) depends on the latest 
> lilypondX.Y package.
> 3. package lilypond-unstable contains the latest unstable version.
> (this way we don't need any lilypondX.Z packages)

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. In 2. I prefer just "lilypond" instead
of "lilypond-stable".

> Sounds good. And before doing anything, please think through all
> dependencies twice. 

That's a good piece of advice. In fact I have to sit down one day and
double check this.

> We don't want to need any dummy transition packages ever (such as
> lilypond1.3); there should maybe be a good way to obsolete all
> earlier packages.

I agree, but OTOH debian has very strong policies about upgrading (and
downgrading) so sometimes a dummy package may be necessary (I'm sure a
more experienced debian developer can explain why).

Pedro