apt-0.5.15lorg3.1-rc2

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 03:57 -0700, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2006, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 07:40:57PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >>> I'd change the package name (e.g. apt-rpm instead of apt), and start all
> >>> over with an "all numeric" version numbering.
> >>
> >> Yeah, the new numbering will be all numeric certainly, and apt ->
> >> apt-rpm makes a lot of sense as well, I suppose that can be considered
> >> as agreed on now.
> >
> > Would that also mean that apt as a command will be renamed to apt-rpm?
> > for example
> >
> > apt-rpm install foo
> 
> That'd cause massive breakage for no good reason IMO, so this is really 
> only about the source tarball name. Packagers are free to call it 'apt' 
> still, or at least I'd suggest putting Provides: apt if the package name 
> is changed.
Well, as I see it, "apt" and it's versions (SONAME, library names) are
occupied by debian's apt. So unless we claim to support Debian's
packaging, I don't feel calling apt-repomd/apt-rpm "apt" is right.

>  But again, this is just to differentiate the *source*.
Not quite, it's also about gaining liberty on SONAMES, API version
names, library name etc.

So far (comprising the cnc and lorg versions), all "apt-rpm" releases
were pretty careless about APIs and actually lied to users by keeping
Debian's names and versions. Theoretically, given the current
versioning, we would not have been allowed to change the API, nor any
Debian-provided header. I would not bet if this is the case, and given
the brokenness of apt's interns, would I want to do it.

> >> I'm mostly wondering about the actual version where to jump to, 1.0
> >> sounds a bit high considering various things but then .. it's just a
> >> damn number.
> >
> > 1.0 sounds fine. :=)
> 
> I'm currently veering towards 0.8.0 so it wouldn't look *that* dramatic 
> update but haven't decided anything really yet :)