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 | 20 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 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-05 16:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped |
| Message-ID | <vfRbP-2jZ-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi, moon-buggy recently had its epoch bumped. The old version is 1.0.51-11, the new version is 1:1.0.51-1. I opened https://bugs.debian.org/887740 to request that the version number be bumped to 1:1.0.51-12. The problem with the 1:1.0.51-1 version number is that the Debian source filenames like the .dsc do not include the epoch in the filename. This means that is impossible to include the completely history of files in the same directory (because there would be files with the same file name but different file contents). This also means that it is impossible to auto-sync the package to Ubuntu. The maintainer thinks the 1:1.0.51-12 version number would be "ugly" and the version number issue is only an Ubuntu-specific problem (given that the original 1.0.51-1 was superseded in 2006). I could not find anywhere in Debian Policy that directly addressed this issue. Therefore, I'm bring up this issue here to get input from other developers. Thanks, Jeremy Bicha
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matt Zagrabelny <mzagrabe@d.umn.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-05 17:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vfRlv-2nq-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #84135 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:43 AM, Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org> wrote: > > The maintainer thinks the 1:1.0.51-12 version number would be "ugly" The maintainer would not be wrong. -m
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-05 17:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vfRvc-2H2-37@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #84135 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 10:43:17AM -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> moon-buggy recently had its epoch bumped. The old version is
> 1.0.51-11, the new version is 1:1.0.51-1. I opened
> https://bugs.debian.org/887740
Sigh.
Indeed he had no reason to bump the epoch.
He couldn't see solutions, but the truth is that all he had to do was to
switch to 3.0 (quilt) with the -12 upload and clean up its sources.
moon-buggy_1.0.51.orig.tar.gz had never been uploaded, and even if it
was the epoch would have not allowed him to replace it as the upstream
version doesn't change with epoch changes.
This is one of the many situations where I'd like developers to *ask*
when unsure or uncertain of something.
So, in fact, the epoch bump was totally useless, and as it often happens
in those cases, it's causing headaches for somebody.
> The maintainer thinks the 1:1.0.51-12 version number would be "ugly"
Well, for sure bumping -1 → -12 is ugly...
> and the version number issue is only an Ubuntu-specific problem (given
> that the original 1.0.51-1 was superseded in 2006).
I agree this is an Ubuntu issue with their infrastructure.
Have you tried asking the ubuntu archive admins, maybe they could get it
through manually?
> I could not find anywhere in Debian Policy that directly addressed
> this issue.
Please don't consider the Debian Policy like a stick. Or a all-kwowing
never-wrong oracle.
> Therefore, I'm bring up this issue here to get input from other
> developers.
If I were the maintainer, I'd just bump the version to get it through
LP, but I'm biased as I'm also a Ubuntu developer.
Otherwise, just manually merge it, doing the 1.0 native → 3.0 quilt move
properly? Just that then the version are not going to match anymore for
a long while, and MoM is surely going to be confused…
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-06 09:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vg6Xf-4xt-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #84137 |
On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 05:06:00PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 10:43:17AM -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > > and the version number issue is only an Ubuntu-specific problem (given > > that the original 1.0.51-1 was superseded in 2006). > > I agree this is an Ubuntu issue with their infrastructure. I disagree - reusing file names with different contents in a Debian-format archive is IMO always wrong regardless of the time elapsed between uses - but it's unlikely to be worth arguing. > Have you tried asking the ubuntu archive admins, maybe they could get it > through manually? There's no such facility. The only way is to bump the version in some way so that there are no collisions. -- Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-06 14:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vgbtU-7pp-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #84142 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 08:37:44AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> I disagree - reusing file names with different contents in a
> Debian-format archive is IMO always wrong regardless of the time elapsed
> between uses - but it's unlikely to be worth arguing.
Do you happen to know what was the reason somebody way back in time
decided to not consider the epoch in the filenames?
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-06 23:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vgjUt-4TZ-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #84143 |
On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:28:54PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 08:37:44AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > I disagree - reusing file names with different contents in a > > Debian-format archive is IMO always wrong regardless of the time elapsed > > between uses - but it's unlikely to be worth arguing. > > Do you happen to know what was the reason somebody way back in time > decided to not consider the epoch in the filenames? My understanding is that it would have caused some kind of problems for common operations at the time involving things like tar, but I'm afraid I forget the details. Ian Jackson would probably know ... -- Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-07 13:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vgwRH-4Zk-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #84157 |
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 09:18:03AM +0000, Jonathan McDowell wrote: >On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 10:19:25PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:28:54PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: >> > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 08:37:44AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: >> > > I disagree - reusing file names with different contents in a >> > > Debian-format archive is IMO always wrong regardless of the time elapsed >> > > between uses - but it's unlikely to be worth arguing. >> > >> > Do you happen to know what was the reason somebody way back in time >> > decided to not consider the epoch in the filenames? >> >> My understanding is that it would have caused some kind of problems for >> common operations at the time involving things like tar, but I'm afraid >> I forget the details. Ian Jackson would probably know ... > >You can't put a : in a filename on a FAT filesystem. And it was the directory delimiter character in HFS, so :'s still have weird behavior in OS X. Mike Stone
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan McDowell <noodles@earth.li> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-07 11:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vguPU-3MU-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #84157 |
On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 10:19:25PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:28:54PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 08:37:44AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > > I disagree - reusing file names with different contents in a > > > Debian-format archive is IMO always wrong regardless of the time elapsed > > > between uses - but it's unlikely to be worth arguing. > > > > Do you happen to know what was the reason somebody way back in time > > decided to not consider the epoch in the filenames? > > My understanding is that it would have caused some kind of problems for > common operations at the time involving things like tar, but I'm afraid > I forget the details. Ian Jackson would probably know ... You can't put a : in a filename on a FAT filesystem. J. -- ... Purranoia: The fear that your cat is up to something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-07 18:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vgBeG-7KT-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #84163 |
On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 09:18:03AM +0000, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> You can't put a : in a filename on a FAT filesystem.
Interestingly enough, you *can* put a : in a filename on an NTFS
filesystem, if you do it with ntfs-3g. Windows won't like it, though.
Yes, I found that out the hard way ;-)
(though this was several years ago, and ntfs-3g might have been patched
in the mean time to no longer support that, but I have no way of testing
anymore...)
--
Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!?
-- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008
Hacklab
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Seth Arnold <seth.arnold@canonical.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-08 00:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vgHDr-3Kx-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #84157 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 10:19:25PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > Do you happen to know what was the reason somebody way back in time > > decided to not consider the epoch in the filenames? > > My understanding is that it would have caused some kind of problems for > common operations at the time involving things like tar, but I'm afraid > I forget the details. Ian Jackson would probably know ... tar will treat a filename with : in it as a command to connect to a remote machine via rsh and execute /etc/rmt remotely: ftp://ftp.gnu.org/old-gnu/Manuals/tar/html_node/tar_127.html The git repo shows that GNU tar had --force-local in 1994 (f_force_local): http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/tar.git/commit/?id=d3fdd8259b1dd0e5ec05d1540b10d2deba7cc864 Perhaps not using colons in filenames directly comes from not wanting to require --force-local on every single tar invocation for decades to come? Thanks
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-09 13:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vhfF7-2Kl-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #84172 |
Seth Arnold writes ("Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped"):
> tar will treat a filename with : in it as a command to connect to a remote
> machine via rsh and execute /etc/rmt remotely:
> ftp://ftp.gnu.org/old-gnu/Manuals/tar/html_node/tar_127.html
>
> The git repo shows that GNU tar had --force-local in 1994 (f_force_local):
>
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/tar.git/commit/?id=d3fdd8259b1dd0e5ec05d1540b10d2deba7cc864
>
> Perhaps not using colons in filenames directly comes from not wanting to
> require --force-local on every single tar invocation for decades to come?
rsync and scp have similar behaviour.
Basically, `:' is annoying in filenames. Encoding it would have been
possible but we don't encode anything else. And I think a rule
against reusing the same upstream version with a different epoch is
entirely sensible, anyway.
There are a lot of things I did many years ago which now turn out to
have been mistakes; I don't think this is one of them.
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] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-09 13:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vhghQ-32W-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #84186 |
On 2018-02-09 13:01, Ian Jackson wrote: > Basically, `:' is annoying in filenames. Encoding it would have been > possible but we don't encode anything else. And I think a rule > against reusing the same upstream version with a different epoch is > entirely sensible, anyway. You say upstream version. But I'd say that rollbacks are exactly that: reuse of a different epoch with the same upstream version. Like what happened to imagemagick multiple times. Kind regards Philipp Kern
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-09 17:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vhjpn-5KL-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #84187 |
Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped"):
> You say upstream version. But I'd say that rollbacks are exactly that:
> reuse of a different epoch with the same upstream version. Like what
> happened to imagemagick multiple times.
I don't know precisely what you mean by "rollback". If you mean
"change our mind about uploading foo new upstream version 3, and go
back to foo upstream version 2", I would not encourage use of an epoch
for that. I would upload foo version "3+really2". This is ugly but
fits much better into everything.
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] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-09 18:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vhkv7-6rO-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #84192 |
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 04:02:42PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped"):
> > You say upstream version. But I'd say that rollbacks are exactly that:
> > reuse of a different epoch with the same upstream version. Like what
> > happened to imagemagick multiple times.
>
> I don't know precisely what you mean by "rollback". If you mean
> "change our mind about uploading foo new upstream version 3, and go
> back to foo upstream version 2", I would not encourage use of an epoch
> for that. I would upload foo version "3+really2". This is ugly but
> fits much better into everything.
That said, even if you did use an epoch in this situation, it shouldn't
cause a problem that you're reusing the *upstream* part of the version,
because the contents of that tarball will (one hopes) be identical.
You'd just need to make sure that the Debian revision isn't reused.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-09 18:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vhkv8-6rO-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #84192 |
On 09.02.2018 17:02, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped"):
>> You say upstream version. But I'd say that rollbacks are exactly that:
>> reuse of a different epoch with the same upstream version. Like what
>> happened to imagemagick multiple times.
>
> I don't know precisely what you mean by "rollback". If you mean
> "change our mind about uploading foo new upstream version 3, and go
> back to foo upstream version 2", I would not encourage use of an epoch
> for that. I would upload foo version "3+really2". This is ugly but
> fits much better into everything.
But how is that better than using an epoch? I fully understand why
Ubuntu has to use this scheme because they can't use epochs. But we can.
Why isn't this a legitimate case to use one?
Kind regards
Philipp Kern
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-09 18:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vhkEO-6xb-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #84194 |
Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> writes: > On 09.02.2018 17:02, Ian Jackson wrote: >> I don't know precisely what you mean by "rollback". If you mean >> "change our mind about uploading foo new upstream version 3, and go >> back to foo upstream version 2", I would not encourage use of an epoch >> for that. I would upload foo version "3+really2". This is ugly but >> fits much better into everything. > But how is that better than using an epoch? I fully understand why > Ubuntu has to use this scheme because they can't use epochs. But we can. > Why isn't this a legitimate case to use one? Ubuntu can use epochs. Neither Debian nor Ubuntu can have two deb files that generate the same filename (which doesn't include the epoch). There isn't really a difference here except that Ubuntu breaks more obviously and earlier, whereas such packages seem like they work in Debian but then break other tools outside of DAK that expect filenames to be unique. -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-09 19:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vhl7Q-6LX-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #84195 |
On 09.02.2018 18:20, Russ Allbery wrote: > Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> writes: >> On 09.02.2018 17:02, Ian Jackson wrote: > >>> I don't know precisely what you mean by "rollback". If you mean >>> "change our mind about uploading foo new upstream version 3, and go >>> back to foo upstream version 2", I would not encourage use of an epoch >>> for that. I would upload foo version "3+really2". This is ugly but >>> fits much better into everything. > >> But how is that better than using an epoch? I fully understand why >> Ubuntu has to use this scheme because they can't use epochs. But we can. >> Why isn't this a legitimate case to use one? > > Ubuntu can use epochs. Neither Debian nor Ubuntu can have two deb files > that generate the same filename (which doesn't include the epoch). If Ubuntu uses an epoch without Debian following that decision, they can never sync with Debian again, increasing the maintenance burden indefinitely. That's the origin of the various +really versions there. Kind regards Philipp Kern
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-09 19:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vhlrb-7bb-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #84196 |
Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> writes: > On 09.02.2018 18:20, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org> writes: >>> But how is that better than using an epoch? I fully understand why >>> Ubuntu has to use this scheme because they can't use epochs. But we >>> can. Why isn't this a legitimate case to use one? >> Ubuntu can use epochs. Neither Debian nor Ubuntu can have two deb >> files that generate the same filename (which doesn't include the >> epoch). > If Ubuntu uses an epoch without Debian following that decision, they can > never sync with Debian again, increasing the maintenance burden > indefinitely. That's the origin of the various +really versions there. Oh, apologies, I misunderstood. Yes, indeed, Ubuntu can't use an epoch independent of Debian for a package also in Debian. -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-09 20:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vhmwV-7T3-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #84196 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 06:58:49PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: > If Ubuntu uses an epoch without Debian following that decision, they can > never sync with Debian again, increasing the maintenance burden > indefinitely. See e.g. libpulse0 (pulseaudio), sadly (I needed to repack a $job package and fix the Depends line to use the package on Debian because of that). -- WBR, wRAR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-02-09 20:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vhmGB-7WF-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #84199 |
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 06:58:49PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: >> If Ubuntu uses an epoch without Debian following that decision, they can >> never sync with Debian again, increasing the maintenance burden >> indefinitely. > See e.g. libpulse0 (pulseaudio), sadly (I needed to repack a $job package > and fix the Depends line to use the package on Debian because of that). Would it hurt to take those epoch bumps into Debian? For instance, the only difference gnome-calculator has in Ubuntu now is the epoch bump. The background is that gcalctool 6.4 was renamed upstream to gnome-calculator 3.7. An overhauled upstream version numbering system seemed a pretty clear case for adding an epoch. A month after this landed in Ubuntu, the Debian packaging used a dh_gencontrol hack to only use an epoch for the transitional package gcalctool allowing the rest of gnome-calculator to avoid an epoch. Pretty cool trick except that it just causes extra work in Ubuntu multiple times a year. Thanks, Jeremy Bicha
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.devel
csiph-web