|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > August 2005 > ignoring upstream's version number?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
ignoring upstream's version number?
|
|
| Harald Dunkel 2005-07-31, 5:56 pm |
| Hi folks,
What happens if a package maintainer ignores upstream's
version number (either on purpose, or by accident, e.g.
a typo)? Is this allowed?
Regards
Harri
| |
| Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo 2005-07-31, 5:56 pm |
| El dom, 31-07-2005 a las 19:13 +0200, Harald Dunkel escribi=C3=B3:
> Hi folks,
>=20
> What happens if a package maintainer ignores upstream's
> version number (either on purpose, or by accident, e.g.
> a typo)? Is this allowed?
If it is done on purpose and for a given reason, it can be perfectly
valid. If not, you can consider that a bug, as usually package should
have the same version than upstream's distributed sources.
--=20
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
jsogo@debian.org
| |
| Mark Brown 2005-07-31, 5:56 pm |
| On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 07:13:43PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> What happens if a package maintainer ignores upstream's
> version number (either on purpose, or by accident, e.g.
> a typo)? Is this allowed?
It depends on the situation - for example, nis ignores the upstream
version number completely because it is an amalgam of three different
upstream releases but I expect that's not the sort of situation you are
thinking of. Could you be more specific about the situation, perhaps?
--
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Harald Dunkel 2005-07-31, 5:56 pm |
| Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
> El dom, 31-07-2005 a las 19:13 +0200, Harald Dunkel escribió:
>
>
>
> If it is done on purpose and for a given reason, it can be perfectly
> valid. If not, you can consider that a bug, as usually package should
> have the same version than upstream's distributed sources.
>
And how is this going to be fixed? The broken version
number might be much higher than upstream's version
number. AFAIK there is no way to turn it back, is it?
The package I have in mind (fvwm) introduced a broken
version number
2.5.130.CVS.2005.07.19.01-1
instead of
2.5.13-0.CVS.2005.07.19.01-1
Creating a bug report (#319386) did not help.
Regards
Harri
| |
| Philipp Kern 2005-07-31, 5:56 pm |
| On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 21:21 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> And how is this going to be fixed? The broken version
> number might be much higher than upstream's version
> number. AFAIK there is no way to turn it back, is it?
The maintainer could use an epoch to fix it. (It's like a 1: prefix.)
> 2.5.130.CVS.2005.07.19.01-1
> 2.5.13-0.CVS.2005.07.19.01-1
Is it really important to have the 0 split away? I think while dashes
are perfectly valid when there is a Debian revision they are not really
loved by the maintainers.
Kind regards,
Philipp Kern
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Harald Dunkel 2005-07-31, 5:56 pm |
| Philipp Kern wrote:
>
> The maintainer could use an epoch to fix it. (It's like a 1: prefix.)
>
>
>
>
> Is it really important to have the 0 split away? I think while dashes
> are perfectly valid when there is a Debian revision they are not really
> loved by the maintainers.
>
I'm running my own fvwm package for several years. Now it
appears to be always out-of-date, since the broken upstream
version number part of fvwm in the official repository seems
to have jumped from 2.5.12 to 2.5.130.xxx instead of 2.5.13.
The epoch number is not supported in the official fvwm sources.
Annoying.
Regards
Harri
| |
| Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo 2005-07-31, 5:56 pm |
| El dom, 31-07-2005 a las 22:20 +0200, Harald Dunkel escribi=C3=B3:
> Philipp Kern wrote:
>=20
> I'm running my own fvwm package for several years. Now it
> appears to be always out-of-date, since the broken upstream
> version number part of fvwm in the official repository seems
> to have jumped from 2.5.12 to 2.5.130.xxx instead of 2.5.13.
Put it on hold, and you won't be asked about upgrading it again. And
you have been told above, using the dash in the upstream version is not
a good option.
>=20
> The epoch number is not supported in the official fvwm sources.
You can also add the epoch number to your own packages. Thus, they will
be always newer than those coming from Debian, so they won't be
upgraded. Of course you don't have to add epochs to upstream sources.
That is not the goal of an epoch.
--=20
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
jsogo@debian.org
| |
| Harald Dunkel 2005-08-01, 2:55 am |
| Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
>
> You can also add the epoch number to your own packages. Thus, they will
> be always newer than those coming from Debian, so they won't be
> upgraded. Of course you don't have to add epochs to upstream sources.
> That is not the goal of an epoch.
>
Upstream provides a debian build environment, of course
without epoch. Its just a little bit strange: After
running configure you can run "make deb-dist". It will
call dpkg-buildpackage to build *.deb files.
Regards
Harri
| |
| Manoj Srivastava 2005-08-01, 2:55 am |
| On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 19:13:43 +0200, Harald Dunkel
<harald.dunkel@t-online.de> said:
> Hi folks, What happens if a package maintainer ignores upstream's
> version number (either on purpose, or by accident, e.g. a typo)? Is
> this allowed?
Err, what do you think could be done in such a case?
manoj
--
To be, or what? Sylvester Stallone
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
|