Re: Dash and dot in package version
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. b...@iguanasuicide.net wrote: In that case +dfsg would be fine (.dfsg is problematic is upstream decides to release a 1.2.1), but you could change it to ~dfsg for the next upstream release. While there are always exceptions, I use the following guidelines: Reserve '.' and digits to upstream. Use + as a decoration when it a a debian addition (e.g. pull from more recent VCS revision). Use ~ as a decoration when it is a debian removal (e.g. DFSG cleaning). '~alphaN', '~betaN' and '~rcN' conveniently sort the way they should, so you can use $next_upstream_version followed by them or just treat them like VCS snapshots. Makes sense, thanks, Ludovico -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Dash and dot in package version
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Ludovico Cavedon ludovico.cave...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Jan Hauke Rahm i...@jhr-online.de wrote: - 2.2~rc3-hg365+dfsg1, but would have the - any drawback I do not see? Ups, this does not work. It does actually: $ dpkg --compare-versions 2.2~rc3-hg365+dfsg1 gt 2.2~rc3+dfsg1 echo true $ dpkg --compare-versions 2.2~rc3-hg365+dfsg1-1 gt 2.2~rc3+dfsg1-1 echo true true dpkg --compare-versions splits the string into upstream version and debian release according to the last -. So if we want to compare an upstream version containing a - we need to expiclity add a debian release (.e.g -1). I also find out the answer to my original questions: '.', '+' and '-' get no special treatment, but they follow ASCII ordering: + - . Cheers, Ludovico -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Dash and dot in package version
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. b...@iguanasuicide.net wrote: In 7337540c0905160100g59c1a3dem9f7622da6ca42...@mail.gmail.com, Ludovico Cavedon wrote: I think I'll go for 2.2~rc3+hg365+dfsg1 Just, IMO: I prefer 2.2~rc3+hg365~dfsg1 so that 2.2~rc3+hg365 would be greater than it. In this way, it would allow distribution of the same upstream without repacking for Debian by a non-Debian (or simply unofficial) group. I think yours is a good point. However, as observed Magnus: However, that won't work if you have already uploaded e.g. version 1.2-3 of a package, and then somebody files a bug that the tarball contains some non-free file, and you'd like to upload 1.2~dfsg-1 to fix it without waiting for a new upstream release. Thanks. Ludovico -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Dash and dot in package version
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Ludovico Cavedon ludovico.cave...@gmail.com wrote: so I think I'll go for 2.2~rc3+hg365+dfsg1 Uhm, anyway, + sorts *before* ., so until next upstream release I must go with 2.2~rc3.hg365+dfsg1 Cheers, Ludovico -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Dash and dot in package version
In 7337540c0905181406k63858584r28dbd4883869c...@mail.gmail.com, Ludovico Cavedon wrote: On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. b...@iguanasuicide.net wrote: Just, IMO: I prefer 2.2~rc3+hg365~dfsg1 so that 2.2~rc3+hg365 would be greater than it. In this way, it would allow distribution of the same upstream without repacking for Debian by a non-Debian (or simply unofficial) group. I think yours is a good point. However, as observed Magnus: However, that won't work if you have already uploaded e.g. version 1.2-3 of a package, and then somebody files a bug that the tarball contains some non-free file, and you'd like to upload 1.2~dfsg-1 to fix it without waiting for a new upstream release. In that case +dfsg would be fine (.dfsg is problematic is upstream decides to release a 1.2.1), but you could change it to ~dfsg for the next upstream release. While there are always exceptions, I use the following guidelines: Reserve '.' and digits to upstream. Use + as a decoration when it a a debian addition (e.g. pull from more recent VCS revision). Use ~ as a decoration when it is a debian removal (e.g. DFSG cleaning). '~alphaN', '~betaN' and '~rcN' conveniently sort the way they should, so you can use $next_upstream_version followed by them or just treat them like VCS snapshots. Still, what version you use should be guided by functionality (how does it sort) rather than pretty stuff. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Dash and dot in package version
In 7337540c0905160100g59c1a3dem9f7622da6ca42...@mail.gmail.com, Ludovico Cavedon wrote: I think I'll go for 2.2~rc3+hg365+dfsg1 Just, IMO: I prefer 2.2~rc3+hg365~dfsg1 so that 2.2~rc3+hg365 would be greater than it. In this way, it would allow distribution of the same upstream without repacking for Debian by a non-Debian (or simply unofficial) group. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Dash and dot in package version
Hi, On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:00:00PM -0700, Ludovico Cavedon wrote: My actual problem is: -current version of qutecom is 2.2~rc3.dfsg1 -as per lintian warning, the next version will be +dfsg1 instead of .dfsg1 -latest upstream version is still 2.2~rc3, but I would like to upload a more recent snapshot from upstream hg. What would be the correct packager version? - 2.2~rc3+hg365+dfsg1, being lucky that +hg comes after +dfsg - 2.2~rc3-hg365+dfsg1, but would have the - any drawback I do not see? What about actually checking some possibilities: $ dpkg --compare-versions 2.2~rc3+hg365+dfsg1 gt 2.2~rc3.dfsg1 echo true $ dpkg --compare-versions 2.2~rc3+hg365.dfsg1 gt 2.2~rc3.dfsg1 echo true $ dpkg --compare-versions 2.2~rc3.dfsg1+hg365 gt 2.2~rc3.dfsg1 echo true true $ dpkg --compare-versions 2.2~rc3+hg365+dfsg1 gt 2.2~rc3.dfsg1 echo true $ dpkg --compare-versions 2.2~rc3-hg365.dfsg1 gt 2.2~rc3.dfsg1 echo true $ dpkg --compare-versions 2.2~rc3.dfsg1+hg365 gt 2.2~rc3.dfsg1 echo true true $ dpkg --compare-versions 2.2~rc3.hg365.dfsg1 gt 2.2~rc3.dfsg1 echo true true $ dpkg --compare-versions 2.2~rc3+hg365+dfsg1 gt 2.2~rc3+dfsg1 echo true true Seems like you need to trick a bit and change your versioning... Cheers, Hauke signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Dash and dot in package version
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 12:22 AM, Jan Hauke Rahm i...@jhr-online.de wrote: - 2.2~rc3-hg365+dfsg1, but would have the - any drawback I do not see? Ups, this does not work. What about actually checking some possibilities: $ dpkg --compare-versions 2.2~rc3+hg365+dfsg1 gt 2.2~rc3.dfsg1 echo true Thanks for the suggestion, dpkg --compare-version will be useful! I think that the hg365 pare should come before dfsg1, i.e. upstram version before debian repackaging $ dpkg --compare-versions 2.2~rc3.hg365.dfsg1 gt 2.2~rc3.dfsg1 echo true true $ dpkg --compare-versions 2.2~rc3+hg365+dfsg1 gt 2.2~rc3+dfsg1 echo true true 2.2~rc3.hg365+dfsg1 is an interesting alternative. However I think is is not advisable for the same reason why +dfsg1 is better than .dfsg1. If in the future I want to do something like 2.3.hg789, and upstread releases 2.3.1, this is going to be troublesome as: dpkg --compare-versions 2.3.1 gt 2.3.hg789 is false so I think I'll go for 2.2~rc3+hg365+dfsg1 Thanks for the hints, Ludovico -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Dash and dot in package version
Ludovico Cavedon wrote: Hi, I could not find exactly how - and . are ordered in package names. Are they equivalent, counting as non-digits? My actual problem is: -current version of qutecom is 2.2~rc3.dfsg1 -as per lintian warning, the next version will be +dfsg1 instead of .dfsg1 -latest upstream version is still 2.2~rc3, but I would like to upload a more recent snapshot from upstream hg. What would be the correct packager version? - 2.2~rc3+hg365+dfsg1, being lucky that +hg comes after +dfsg - 2.2~rc3-hg365+dfsg1, but would have the - any drawback I do not see? When adding a dfsg or whatever suffix, always use ~ to avoid problems like the one Jan pointed out. So your version would be 2.2~rc3~dfsg1, and then you bump to 2.2~rc3+hg123~dfsg1. I think you should use 2.2~rc3.hg123~dfsg1 for now, and when 2.2 is released you go to 2.2.0~dfsg1 (the .0 is needed because dfsg sorts before rc3). -- Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Dash and dot in package version
On Saturday 16 May 2009 07:00:00 Ludovico Cavedon wrote: Hi, I could not find exactly how - and . are ordered in package names. Are they equivalent, counting as non-digits? My actual problem is: -current version of qutecom is 2.2~rc3.dfsg1 -as per lintian warning, the next version will be +dfsg1 instead of .dfsg1 -latest upstream version is still 2.2~rc3, but I would like to upload a more recent snapshot from upstream hg. What would be the correct packager version? - 2.2~rc3+hg365+dfsg1, being lucky that +hg comes after +dfsg - 2.2~rc3-hg365+dfsg1, but would have the - any drawback I do not see? Thanks, Ludovico Try dpkg --compare-versions Noel er Envite signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Dash and dot in package version
On lördagen den 16 maj 2009, Felipe Sateler wrote: When adding a dfsg or whatever suffix, always use ~ to avoid problems like the one Jan pointed out. So your version would be 2.2~rc3~dfsg1, and then you bump to 2.2~rc3+hg123~dfsg1. However, that won't work if you have already uploaded e.g. version 1.2-3 of a package, and then somebody files a bug that the tarball contains some non-free file, and you'd like to upload 1.2~dfsg-1 to fix it without waiting for a new upstream release. -- Magnus Holmgrenholmg...@debian.org Debian Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Dash and dot in package version
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Magnus Holmgren holmg...@debian.org wrote: On lördagen den 16 maj 2009, Felipe Sateler wrote: When adding a dfsg or whatever suffix, always use ~ to avoid problems like the one Jan pointed out. So your version would be 2.2~rc3~dfsg1, and then you bump to 2.2~rc3+hg123~dfsg1. However, that won't work if you have already uploaded e.g. version 1.2-3 of a package, and then somebody files a bug that the tarball contains some non-free file, and you'd like to upload 1.2~dfsg-1 to fix it without waiting for a new upstream release. Yes, I agree with that (and also with http://lintian.debian.org/tags/dfsg-version-with-period.html). dfsg it is something that comes *after* the upstream release. Thanks, Ludovico -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Dash and dot in package version
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Ludovico Cavedon ludovico.cave...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Magnus Holmgren holmg...@debian.org wrote: On lördagen den 16 maj 2009, Felipe Sateler wrote: When adding a dfsg or whatever suffix, always use ~ to avoid problems like the one Jan pointed out. So your version would be 2.2~rc3~dfsg1, and then you bump to 2.2~rc3+hg123~dfsg1. However, that won't work if you have already uploaded e.g. version 1.2-3 of a package, and then somebody files a bug that the tarball contains some non-free file, and you'd like to upload 1.2~dfsg-1 to fix it without waiting for a new upstream release. Yes, I agree with that (and also with http://lintian.debian.org/tags/dfsg-version-with-period.html). dfsg it is something that comes *after* the upstream release. I mean: repackaging for dfsg compliance is something that comes after the upstream release, so +dfsg1 is the right one. My problem is how to deal with hg375 in combination with +dfsg1. Thanks, Ludovivo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Dash and dot in package version
Ludovico Cavedon wrote: On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Ludovico Cavedon ludovico.cave...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Magnus Holmgren holmg...@debian.org wrote: On lördagen den 16 maj 2009, Felipe Sateler wrote: When adding a dfsg or whatever suffix, always use ~ to avoid problems like the one Jan pointed out. So your version would be 2.2~rc3~dfsg1, and then you bump to 2.2~rc3+hg123~dfsg1. However, that won't work if you have already uploaded e.g. version 1.2-3 of a package, and then somebody files a bug that the tarball contains some non-free file, and you'd like to upload 1.2~dfsg-1 to fix it without waiting for a new upstream release. Yes, I agree with that (and also with http://lintian.debian.org/tags/dfsg-version-with-period.html). dfsg it is something that comes *after* the upstream release. I mean: repackaging for dfsg compliance is something that comes after the upstream release, so +dfsg1 is the right one. My problem is how to deal with hg375 in combination with +dfsg1. Of course, you can always do 2.2~rc3+dfsg1+hg375 (a bit uglier, but works). Thanks, Ludovivo -- Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
