Hi,
I am packaging the mythtv, xmltv and further required dependencies in
rpms format. Some time ago (sorry couldn't find a reference) it was
discussed whether it was a good thing to package CVS versions. The
consent back then was not to do so. I think the arguments were that
users would not be able to identify the CVS checkout date in their bug
reports.
I have gotten lately many requests for packaging the CVS versions and
they all have valid reasons to do so (bug fixes, new hardware), so I'd
like to bring this up again.
Would it be acceptable to package CVS versions denoting the checkout
date in the version (or rather the release) field? Something like
mythsomething-0.9-cvs20030614.1?
--
Axel.Thimm@physik.fu-berlin.de
I am packaging the mythtv, xmltv and further required dependencies in
rpms format. Some time ago (sorry couldn't find a reference) it was
discussed whether it was a good thing to package CVS versions. The
consent back then was not to do so. I think the arguments were that
users would not be able to identify the CVS checkout date in their bug
reports.
I have gotten lately many requests for packaging the CVS versions and
they all have valid reasons to do so (bug fixes, new hardware), so I'd
like to bring this up again.
Would it be acceptable to package CVS versions denoting the checkout
date in the version (or rather the release) field? Something like
mythsomething-0.9-cvs20030614.1?
--
Axel.Thimm@physik.fu-berlin.de