Re: Packaging (was Re: Socket library?)
- From: Jay Carlson <nop@xxxxxxx>
- To: luajit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 22:26:58 -0400
On Oct 4, 2012, at 5:18 PM, Justin Cormack wrote:
> I think the real issue is that there has not been a real release yet and
> until then there is little point packaging. Because there are so many changes
> even since the last beta it is such a moving target. Once 2.0 is out it
> should be packaged up...
Upstream only suggests when things are ready to be packaged; this has to be the
case because there is such variance in attitudes towards labeling; check out
libav. If some other release-suitable package is using a library, regardless of
whether it's marked "alpha" or "beta" or "svn17329", the library is a candidate
to get packaged. If more than about five packages are using it, it's time to
ship.
The tradeoff is packager/maintainer time. If something is full of bugs, this
can get real expensive in time spent. Debian policy is to backport patches
rather than force major upgrades midstream, and this is a major limit on
version proliferation especially if you're promising support for n years.
beta9 has been pretty compelling. I wouldn't have seen any problem shipping it,
as it seems analogous to lua4 even when we knew lua5 was around the ccorner.
RPi saying "I don't want anything with beta in its name in my release" makes me
think they need to get out of the distro business; is marketing driving?
Jay
Other related posts:
