FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-27-2008, 11:51 AM
Dominic Hargreaves
 
Default Unusual version numbering systems

Hi,

I have packaged a piece of software [1] which uses a version number
system which is not compatible with Debian's ordering.

The version numbers go like

4.1
4.12
4.2rc<n> -> 4.2~rc<n>
4.2
4.21
(maybe 4.3)

So, 4.12 and 4.21 are point releases, and break the ordering.

I would now like to package 4.21, but I'm aware that this leads the way
to problems for 4.3.

As I see it there are three ways to fix this:

- persuade upstream to change the version numbering
- add an epoch each time a new major release comes out (but policy
discourages this - see note at the bottom of 5.6.12)
- package 4.3, if/when it comes along, as 4.30 instead.

Of these options, the first may not be possible, the second is a bit
ugly, and the third is probably the most confusing in that it invents
version numbers. I think I would prefer the second option, but does
anyone else have any suggestions or pointers to where this sort of
problem has been solved before?

I'm asking now in case there is another option which would require me
doing something different for 4.21.

Thanks,
Dominic.

[1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/m/movabletype-opensource.html

--
Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/
PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 08-27-2008, 11:56 AM
Michal Čihař
 
Default Unusual version numbering systems

Hi

Dne Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:51:19 +0100
Dominic Hargreaves <dom@earth.li> napsal(a):

> So, 4.12 and 4.21 are point releases, and break the ordering.
>
> I would now like to package 4.21, but I'm aware that this leads the way
> to problems for 4.3.
>
> As I see it there are three ways to fix this:
>
> - persuade upstream to change the version numbering
> - add an epoch each time a new major release comes out (but policy
> discourages this - see note at the bottom of 5.6.12)
> - package 4.3, if/when it comes along, as 4.30 instead.

You can also use 4.2.1 instead of 4.21. Also confusing but maybe a bit
less than using 4.30. I would try first to talk to upstream, because
most distributions will have same issue.

--
Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com
 
Old 08-27-2008, 12:00 PM
"Martn Ferrari"
 
Default Unusual version numbering systems

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 08:51, Dominic Hargreaves <dom@earth.li> wrote:


> I'm asking now in case there is another option which would require me
> doing something different for 4.21.

I'd add zeroes to the right, to have always two digits after the
point, which can be done automatically with a uversionmangle rule if
you use uscan and watchfiles. And in this way, the "invented" version
is documented.


--
Martn Ferrari


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 08-27-2008, 12:01 PM
Ralf Treinen
 
Default Unusual version numbering systems

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:51:19PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:

> The version numbers go like
>
> 4.1
> 4.12
> 4.2rc<n> -> 4.2~rc<n>
> 4.2
> 4.21
> (maybe 4.3)
>
> So, 4.12 and 4.21 are point releases, and break the ordering.
>
> I would now like to package 4.21, but I'm aware that this leads the way
> to problems for 4.3.
>
> As I see it there are three ways to fix this:
>
> - persuade upstream to change the version numbering
> - add an epoch each time a new major release comes out (but policy
> discourages this - see note at the bottom of 5.6.12)
> - package 4.3, if/when it comes along, as 4.30 instead.

You might also pack 4.21 as 4.2.1, or maybe 4.2.1.was.4.21 if you want to
have the original version number visible.

-Ralf.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 08-27-2008, 12:06 PM
Bastian Blank
 
Default Unusual version numbering systems

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:51:19PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> I have packaged a piece of software [1] which uses a version number
> system which is not compatible with Debian's ordering.
>
> The version numbers go like
>
> 4.1
> 4.12
-> 4.1.2
> 4.2rc<n> -> 4.2~rc<n>
> 4.2
> 4.21
-> 4.2.1
> (maybe 4.3)

> - persuade upstream to change the version numbering

Usually the best version, because most of the distributions have some
version comparision which will break on that versioning.

> - add an epoch each time a new major release comes out (but policy
> discourages this - see note at the bottom of 5.6.12)

Epochs are to fix errors made in the versioning, not to workaround
well-known problems.

> - package 4.3, if/when it comes along, as 4.30 instead.

- Use your own scheme, you don't need to follow upstream if you have
reasons to do so.

Bastian

--
Vulcans do not approve of violence.
-- Spock, "Journey to Babel", stardate 3842.4


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 08-27-2008, 12:25 PM
Neil Williams
 
Default Unusual version numbering systems

On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 12:51 +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> - package 4.3, if/when it comes along, as 4.30 instead.

and continue to assume a '0' suffix if one is not present, so that 4.4
is actually 4.40 etc.

However, are you sure that getting upstream to use 4.3.0 isn't
achievable? 4.3.1 would follow either 4.3 or 4.3.0

> Of these options, the first may not be possible, the second is a bit
> ugly, and the third is probably the most confusing in that it invents
> version numbers. I think I would prefer the second option, but does
> anyone else have any suggestions or pointers to where this sort of
> problem has been solved before?



--


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
 
Old 08-27-2008, 02:19 PM
Manoj Srivastava
 
Default Unusual version numbering systems

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:51:19 +0100, Dominic Hargreaves <dom@earth.li> said:

> Hi, I have packaged a piece of software [1] which uses a version
> number system which is not compatible with Debian's ordering.

> The version numbers go like
4.1
4.12 -> 4.1.2
4.2rc<n> -> 4.2~rc<n>
4.2
4.21 -> 4.2.1
(maybe 4.3)

Mostly upstream compliant, modulo adding a period, no epochs, no
willing upstream required -- as long as upstream does not suddenly
change version numbering midstream.

manoj
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're doing about average. Leonard
Levinson
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
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
 
Old 08-29-2008, 03:22 PM
Dominic Hargreaves
 
Default Unusual version numbering systems

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 09:19:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:51:19 +0100, Dominic Hargreaves <dom@earth.li> said:
>
> > Hi, I have packaged a piece of software [1] which uses a version
> > number system which is not compatible with Debian's ordering.
>
> > The version numbers go like
> 4.1
> 4.12 -> 4.1.2
> 4.2rc<n> -> 4.2~rc<n>
> 4.2
> 4.21 -> 4.2.1
> (maybe 4.3)
>
> Mostly upstream compliant, modulo adding a period, no epochs, no
> willing upstream required -- as long as upstream does not suddenly
> change version numbering midstream.

Thanks for all the replies; I will let upstream know and package 4.21 as
4.2.1 (as it's already been released I it doesn't seem reasonable to
expect that to change...)

Dominic.

--
Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/
PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:21 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org