Your message dated Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:40:24 +0200
with message-id <20120727144024.GA13681@localhost>
and subject line Re: Bug#682948: Incorrect versioning scheme disturbs upgrading
has caused the Debian Bug report #682948,
regarding Incorrect versioning scheme disturbs upgrading
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
682948: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=682948
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: blender
Version: 2.63a-1
Severity: important
Please don't change the versioning scheme, and don't use upstream
version string "a", "b", etc. Old blender package for 2.49b used the
package version "2.49.2" to avoid the upgrade issue.
Changelog of 2.49.2~dfsg-1 says:
This is actually 2.49b, but using a "+dfsg" suffix breaks comparing
2.49+dfsg and 2.49b+dfsg. Use ".2" instead of "b" accordingly. And
switch to using a "~dfsg" suffix.
So, 2.63a should be translated into 2.63.1 for the same reason.
In my PPA in Launchpad, I have maintained blender trunk package for
Ubuntu and the package version uses "+svn" suffix like
2.63.1+svn49102-0irie1~precise1.
Since Debian package system compares the versions as
2.63a+svn < 2.63+svn < 2.63.1+svn,
if the official Debian/Ubuntu package uses the wrong versioning scheme
such as 2.63a, I can no longer provide the trunk packages having a
version suffix "+svn".
--
IRIE Shinsuke
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Package: blender
Version: 2.63a-1
Hi!
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 04:12:41PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 12-07-27 at 10:02pm, IRIE Shinsuke wrote:
> > I forgot to say that actually there were official deb packages using
> > "+cvs" suffix in the past (ex. 2.25b+cvs.2003.02.17-1). So, "+svn"
> > suffix might be used for the future versions of the official packages.
> >
> > I mean the versioning scheme like 2.63.1 is generally necessary, not
> > only for my PPA's packages.
>
> I do not find it "necessary" for Debian to follow a naming scheme used
> in Ubuntu, just as upstream should not worry about Debian when they
> choose a naming scheme. Ubuntu developers are strongly encouraged to
> help maintain packages in Debian as a better alternative to try
> second-guess future naming of Debian packages.
>
> When Ubuntu introduces packages in their repos that does not exist in
> Debian, there is a real risk of diverging from Debian. It only makes
> sense to me to treat Debian as upstream to Ubuntu - not the opposite.
Exactly!
That's why I downgraded bug severity from "important" to "wishlist".
Thanks Jonas for pointing this out with his usual aplomb. ;-)
I'm not going to use SVN revisions other than the stable releases.
So Debian Blender package is not going to face this issue at all.
Since I'm actually the only active maintainer for this package,
I don't see any issue in naming using upstream's version numbering.
Sorry if you disagree, but I'm closing this bug report, pointless from
my point of view.
Cheers.
--
Matteo F. Vescovi
Debian Maintainer
GnuPG KeyID: 83B2CF7A
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
