-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Guillermo Ballester Valor wrote: ...
My aim was not to force any user of amsn-0.94 to upgrade to a cvs version when doing, as example, 'apt-get upgrade'. As I said, my first atempt was a naming scheme as you and Pascal suggested. May be I was wrong when I changed my mind.
Yes, I see what you mean. That's an always recurring issue. That's why I was speaking of having different repositories tagged as "experimental" and "stable", some 2 or 3 months ago. But Sonja bashed me on the opensuse list for being too debian ;)) (although to me it's not the same as Debian, it's just for community packager repositories, not for the core distribution itself). If people want the latest bleeding edge snapshot, then they use also add the "experimental" repository. If not, if they just want the latest stable releases, then they only use the "stable" repository. If you stick with "amsn_cvs", I'd strongly suggest to include a "Conflicts: amsn" in the spec file (if you didn't do it already ;)). cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ <pascal.bleser@skynet.be> <guru@unixtech.be> _\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDhMuxr3NMWliFcXcRAhU7AKCwFaMCsZqlTvRYhP+ulClwUCUW2wCdFUwO uNchLMZJaXmwQbyU48b63/g= =kJQQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----