Re: Pre-Announcing Emacspeak 97++
Jim Van Zandt writes:
> I'm glad to hear about the new release.
Yes-- now you can buy some stock:-)
> Just last weekend I finished and uploaded a Debian package for
> Emacspeak-5.0. With that experience fresh in my mind, I have two
> small requests concerning the new Emacspeak release.
> First, please arrange for the .tar file to unpack into a subdirectory,
> not into the current directory. For the Debian packaging system, the
> source .tar file must unpack into a subdirectory. It is no trouble
> for me to repeat the tar operation. That's what I did for 5.0.
> However, it means that the .tar file I submit to the Debian archives
> is no longer exactly the same (with the same cryptographic checksum as
> calculated by md5sum) as what you distribute. A user cannot verify
> quite so easily that the file has not been tampered with.
Okay-- this should be easy for me to do.
I'll ship you a pre-pre-release sometime in late April so you can
sanity check to make sure things work fine for your purposes.
> Second, please give the new distribution a conventional version number
> like 5.1 or 6.0. Debian version numbers follow the upstream
Emacspeak has always had (and always will have) conventional version
I maintain the development sources under RCS and there is no way I
would maintain it as "emacspeak 97".
You clearly missed the humor in the naming scheme:-)
> numbers, and the Debian package management system tries to ensure that
> users do not downgrade packages. emacspeak-97 is certainly an
Emacspeak 5.0 released in late 1996 was called Emacspeak 97 --note
that my pre-release announcement called the new one
> of emacspeak-5.0. However, what are you going to do in three more
> years? emacspeak-00 would *not* seem to be an upgrade of
I'll let richer bodies decide that and follow in their prosperous (if
not eminent ) wake.
>Yes, a little explanation and manual system
> administration will handle the issue. However, for the new user, it
> is just one more obstacle to overcome.
I think you're seriously over-reacting. No version of Emacspeak has
shipped without an RCS version number, and I have no idea what you're
> There is a precedent for nicnames as well as official
> version numbers. The last Slackware release was called "Slackware
> 96", but it also had an official version number of 3.1. The beta test
> version has the number 3.2.
> Incidently, the Debian package has not shown up on mirrors yet, but I
> think it was in time to be included in the next official release,
> which will be Debian 1.3.
> - Jim Van Zandt
And as I point out, Emacspeak has maintained this tradition of
nicknames and true version numbers.
Adobe Systems Tel: 1 (408) 536 3945 (W14-129)
Advanced Technology Group Fax: 1 (408) 537 4042
(W14 129) 345 Park Avenue Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
San Jose , CA 95110 -2704 Email: email@example.com
http://labrador.corp.adobe.com/~raman/raman.html (Adobe Internal)
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own and in no way should be taken
as representative of my employer, Adobe Systems Inc.