h4ck3rm1k3
commented
12 years ago Hi, thank you for your suggestion. I will look into this. good idea with otrs_cvs mike
Open ghost opened 12 years ago
h4ck3rm1k3
commented
12 years ago Hi, thank you for your suggestion. I will look into this. good idea with otrs_cvs mike
Hi,
I have a remark about the naming of the package at the moment.
The name otrs2 came from the transition of otrs (version 1.x) to framework 2.x As you packaged the OTRS CVS version which will become OTRS 3.1 at the beginning of next year, I suggest to name the package otrs3.1. This is a general issue with the Debian OTRS package where you have a otrs package which depends on otrs2 where otrs2 should be renamed to otrs3.0 (to reflect the framework version)
Maybe there should be different flavours of OTRS similar to the Debian distribution:
otrs-oldstable - meta package which points to the former stable OTRS 2.4 -> otrs_2.4 otrs-stable - meta package which points to the current stable OTRS 3.0 -> otrs_3.0 otrs-testing - meta package which points to the current testing OTRS 3.1 -> otrs_3.1 otrs-unstable - meta package which points to the current CVS OTRS -> otrs_cvs
otrs_2.4 - current OTRS 2.4 framework version (2.4.12) otrs_3.0 - current OTRS 3.0 framework version (3.0.11) otrs_3.1 - current CVS version (which will become OTRS framework 3.1) otrs_cvs - current CVS version
At some time we will have OTRS 3.1 alpha/beta/xxx and unstable may point to the new CVS branch then.
Maybe this is not the right place to discuss this issue but what do you think?
Daniel