Bug 10438 - Packages pocket/name-versioning broken
Summary: Packages pocket/name-versioning broken
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Packaging (show other bugs)
Version: Main
Hardware: All Linux
: P5 - low normal (vote)
Assignee: Bugs List
QA Contact:
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2013-06-09 15:50 UTC by Tomás Cohen Arazi
Modified: 2015-06-04 23:24 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Change sponsored?: ---
Patch complexity: ---
Documentation contact:
Documentation submission:
Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Tomás Cohen Arazi 2013-06-09 15:50:46 UTC
Our current packages naming and versioning doesn't support what we claim: if someone wants to maintain an specific version then we'll let him. It is also unnecesarilly complex for the users too.

The current schema provides only two stable versions support at a given time, with 'oldstable' and 'stable' dists as a way of specifying that. Not only has that versions limitation (which could be fixed adding something like 'olderoldstable') but is also difficult for the user who has to check whether to change stable to oldstable to avoid unwanted version jump. This makes maintenance difficult even for IT stuff (is not *that* difficult, but is unnecesary).

I propose changing the packages naming schema to something like:

- Dists: stable (for the stable releases), devel (for the development branches)
- Packages naming/version: pick the one VirtualBox uses and have:
  koha-common-3.8
  koha-common-3.10
  koha-common-3.12 and so on

as packages names. Versioned with their corresponding full version (with minor release number) as it obvoiusly should.

I think changing ths should be a minor task, and would make install instructions easier to write, maintain and follow, and would allow us to support more than two stable releases at a time. In a simpler way.
Comment 1 Robin Sheat 2013-09-01 21:56:12 UTC
I'm really not much of a fan of this idea, mostly (though not exclusively) because it prevents having an upgrade path into newer versions, and people could unknowingly end up on an unsupported version.
Comment 2 Martin Renvoize 2014-06-05 19:04:11 UTC
I personally liked this idea and feel it's wrong to be pushing people onto .0 releases.  

The idea needs fleshing out as per Lars's suggestions. I'm disappointed that this is a 'WONTFIX'.