Re: address@hidden: Re: Possible help with stable Emacs releases.]

[Rob Browning]

address@hidden (Kim F. Storm) writes:

>> emacs20 because there were many users who had code that they couldn't
>> afford to port immediately.  It can also be important because it may
>> take a while for all of Debian's Emacs sub-packages (calc, bbdb, gnus,
>> psgml, ...) to be updated to work with the new major version of Emacs.
>
> IIRC, 20.6 -> 20.7 was a pretty major update.

Well from what I recall, it wasn't nearly the same as say the Emacs 19
to Emacs 20 transition, at least from the Debian perspective.  I don't
recall any serious problems, though that doesn't mean that I haven't
just forgotten them.

> This could be another argument for using 22.1 for the next release.

Hmm.  I thought I saw some other posts that suggested that you were
going to number the next release 22.1.  If not, and if there really is
the potential for significant breakage, then please reconsider.  If
there may be trouble, what would be the argument against naming it
22.1?

> I suppose there may be other cases like that, as CVS emacs include
> quite a number of new packages.

Changes like that may be less problematic for Debian.  For some subset
of problems of that nature, we can solve them using packaging
dependencies, i.e. (i.e. Conflicts: calc << X.Y.Z or whatever's
needed).  We can work that kind of thing out in unstable.

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4