Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.devel > #84135 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-02-05 16:50 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-04-09 15:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 2 on this page of 102 — 36 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.devel
Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org> - 2018-02-05 16:50 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Matt Zagrabelny <mzagrabe@d.umn.edu> - 2018-02-05 17:00 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2018-02-05 17:10 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> - 2018-02-06 09:40 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2018-02-06 14:30 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> - 2018-02-06 23:30 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-02-07 13:20 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Jonathan McDowell <noodles@earth.li> - 2018-02-07 11:10 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2018-02-07 18:00 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Seth Arnold <seth.arnold@canonical.com> - 2018-02-08 00:50 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2018-02-09 13:10 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> - 2018-02-09 13:50 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2018-02-09 17:10 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> - 2018-02-09 18:20 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> - 2018-02-09 18:20 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2018-02-09 18:30 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> - 2018-02-09 19:00 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2018-02-09 19:20 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2018-02-09 20:30 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org> - 2018-02-09 20:40 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2018-02-12 03:30 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2018-02-14 13:00 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> - 2018-02-14 14:00 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@ubuntu.com> - 2018-02-14 14:50 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> - 2018-02-14 16:40 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> - 2018-02-14 15:00 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> - 2018-02-14 15:20 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> - 2018-02-14 19:00 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> - 2018-02-14 20:30 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> - 2018-02-14 21:10 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-02-14 21:20 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> - 2018-02-14 21:30 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-02-14 21:40 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2018-02-14 22:00 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-02-14 22:30 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2018-02-14 22:40 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-02-14 23:10 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2018-02-14 23:20 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-02-14 23:40 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2018-02-15 11:20 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2018-02-15 11:50 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2018-02-15 12:30 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Thibaut Paumard <thibaut@debian.org> - 2018-02-15 13:30 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Vincent Ladeuil <v.ladeuil+debian@free.fr> - 2018-02-15 15:10 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2018-02-16 03:10 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org> - 2018-03-12 12:40 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Cédric Boutillier <boutil@debian.org> - 2018-03-12 18:50 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2018-02-15 01:00 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-02-14 21:50 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Matt Zagrabelny <mzagrabe@d.umn.edu> - 2018-02-14 21:50 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2018-02-15 08:50 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped gregor herrmann <gregoa@debian.org> - 2018-02-15 09:00 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2018-02-15 09:30 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Thibaut Paumard <thibaut@debian.org> - 2018-02-15 11:20 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped gregor herrmann <gregoa@debian.org> - 2018-02-15 13:10 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Thibaut Paumard <thibaut@debian.org> - 2018-02-15 13:40 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> - 2018-02-15 14:20 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Thibaut Paumard <thibaut@debian.org> - 2018-02-15 15:30 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-02-15 14:20 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2018-02-14 15:50 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> - 2018-02-14 16:10 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2018-02-14 16:10 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> - 2018-02-14 16:30 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2018-02-14 17:10 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> - 2018-02-14 18:30 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2018-02-15 11:20 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2018-02-14 15:10 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Ian Campbell <ijc@debian.org> - 2018-02-14 15:50 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2018-02-09 19:40 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2018-02-12 03:20 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2018-02-06 14:40 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2018-02-06 15:00 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> - 2018-02-06 14:40 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2018-02-06 15:20 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-02-12 09:40 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2018-02-06 14:40 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2018-02-06 15:00 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Chris Lamb <lamby@debian.org> - 2018-02-06 16:20 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped "Christian T. Steigies" <cts@debian.org> - 2018-02-07 14:00 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2018-02-07 15:00 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Ian Campbell <ijc@debian.org> - 2018-02-08 11:20 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> - 2018-02-08 12:00 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Ian Campbell <ijc@debian.org> - 2018-02-09 21:00 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Chris Lamb <lamby@debian.org> - 2018-02-09 23:10 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> - 2018-02-07 16:40 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> - 2018-02-07 11:00 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Chris Lamb <lamby@debian.org> - 2018-02-07 11:50 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> - 2018-02-07 12:30 +0100
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org> - 2018-03-28 22:20 +0200
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Chris Lamb <lamby@debian.org> - 2018-03-29 00:00 +0200
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2018-03-29 00:30 +0200
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2018-03-29 01:00 +0200
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped "Christian T. Steigies" <cts@debian.org> - 2018-03-29 19:10 +0200
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2018-03-29 20:00 +0200
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> - 2018-03-30 13:30 +0200
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped "Christian T. Steigies" <cts@debian.org> - 2018-04-02 20:40 +0200
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> - 2018-04-02 21:10 +0200
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2018-04-02 21:50 +0200
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2018-04-03 05:10 +0200
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped James McCoy <jamessan@debian.org> - 2018-04-03 05:20 +0200
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped "Christian T. Steigies" <cts@debian.org> - 2018-04-07 20:10 +0200
Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2018-04-09 15:30 +0200
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | "Christian T. Steigies" <cts@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-07 20:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vC0rL-5MB-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #85278 |
On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 08:41:00PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > A recap of what happened, for those who might have lost track: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=887740#10 > > The old source package contained two tar > > balls, the "real" tarball plus a separate one with patches (upstream wanted > > things separate). The build script was, say, not optimal, and I also made > > the mistake of uploading it as debian native package. By bumping the epoch > > and repackaging from scratch, I tried to fix all the mistakes I had made a > > long time ago. > > The newest version of the old tar-in-tar packaging can be seen here: > https://sources.debian.org/src/moon-buggy/1.0.51-11/ > > What I would personally have done *then*, from that starting point, would > be to bump the version to 1.0.51+repack, or maybe 1.0.51+upstream if > the new orig tarball was something that the upstream developer released, > or something similar, then package and upload revision 1 of that. That > would have been fine - no epoch needed. > > However, because you previously maintained this as a native package, > there has been no collision for the filename of the orig.tar.gz, because > before the epoch was added there *was* no orig.tar.gz; and you've already > paid the maintenance cost of having an epoch, so you might as well benefit > from it. So what I'd advise *now* would be to increase the revision to 12 > and carry on from there. This has been addressed by policy now, does you recommendation still hold? I understand the explanation for source and binary package, but I wonder if I have the right interpretation for the upstream source code: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#uniqueness-of-version-numbers 3.2.2. Uniqueness of version numbers ... Additionally, for non-native packages, the upstream version must not be reused for different upstream source code, so that for each source package name and upstream version number there exists exactly one original source archive contents (see Files). Since the intial upload was as native package, and the latest as non-native, this does not apply to moon-buggy and I can upload with revision 12 as you suggested? thanks, Christian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 15:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vCF1U-7DL-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #85349 |
Christian T. Steigies writes ("Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped"):
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 08:41:00PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > [...] So what I'd advise *now* would be to increase the revision
> > to 12 and carry on from there.
>
> This has been addressed by policy now, does you recommendation still hold?
I see no relevant difference between the views expressed by Simon in
his email, and the statement now codified in policy.
I agree with the policy and IMO Simon's recommendations are good.
> I understand the explanation for source and binary package, but I wonder if
> I have the right interpretation for the upstream source code:
>
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#uniqueness-of-version-numbers
> 3.2.2. Uniqueness of version numbers
> ...
> Additionally, for non-native packages, the upstream version must not be
> reused for different upstream source code, so that for each source package
> name and upstream version number there exists exactly one original source
> archive contents (see Files).
>
> Since the intial upload was as native package, and the latest as non-native,
> this does not apply to moon-buggy and I can upload with revision 12 as you
> suggested?
I think this is correct, yes.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.devel
csiph-web