On Thu, Jun 29, 2017, at 10:34 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:29:29PM +0200, Brian Exelbierd wrote: > > However, considering this from a different angle, a LAMP stack module, > > for example, might just need to make a certain API/ABI promise and then > > it could roll for quite a while. This would be without regard to the > > changes in the underlying software versions, as long as what was > > promised on the wrapper was still met. If this is the case then > > "collections" are no different from "single applications." > > In terms of EOL, right. But collections have no obvious intrinsic > version number to use as the major stream identifier, whereas > applications (and environments and stacks) do. I think we should allow for an arbitrary version number when the collection is not obviously tied to a specific release/user space. However, I think that should strongly be discouraged and if at all possible the motivating software in the collection's version number should be used. This is not something that should ever require heavy debate, imho. I trust packagers to make the right decision. regards, bex _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
