Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Debian Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/debian-development/)
-   -   Proposed MBF: Debian upstream version higher than watch file-reported upstream version (http://www.linux-archive.org/debian-development/57909-proposed-mbf-debian-upstream-version-higher-than-watch-file-reported-upstream-version.html)

Raphael Hertzog 02-17-2008 08:04 PM

Proposed MBF: Debian upstream version higher than watch file-reported upstream version
 
Hello,

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Rationale: the watch files are meant to keep track of upstream and if there's
> a newer version not being reported by the watch file it means that it needs
> to be fixed.
>
> Please note that this situation often occurs when the maintainer didn't make
> the watch file strip some +VCSrevNNNNN that was added to the Debian Version.
>
> If nobody objects I'll start filling (in an automated way since there are no
> false positives) reports on the 307 source packages which report a Debian
> upstream version higher than Upstream version by the watch file.

I do object. I don't think it's really important to complicate watch files
to strip .dfsg or +svnXXXX that are addded by Debian maintainers. The most
important thing with watch files is that a new upstream version is
detected... but it's not important if the report says that Debian is newer
than upstream when in fact we're at the same version.

And when we have +svnXXXX we are indeed newer than the upstream released
tarball and the information is correct! So stripping that part would be a
mistake.

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog

Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


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

Raphael Hertzog 02-18-2008 06:42 AM

Proposed MBF: Debian upstream version higher than watch file-reported upstream version
 
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Ack, what about only reporting (thus in a non automated way) on those which
> are not affected by any repackaging/similar version part?

It's might be acceptable but I'm not sure either. Some packages have
development version packaged and those development versions are released
differently than the stable releases... thus in theory it would need an
update of the watch file to point to the development release during the
time when the devel version is packaged (AFAIK, that's the case for
glib2.0 that you gave as example).

But as a maintainer I wouldn't update the watch file because what I care
is to not miss a new stable release... missing a development release is
not a big deal.

Maybe there's room for improvement to uscan here. It would check at
several places and know the status (stable, development) of each release
based on where it was found.

At the end, I think there are far better things to do than overoptimize
watch files. If watch files is something that you find important, you could
work on creating watch files for all the packages that don't have any and
submit them (and also use them for DEHS check even while they are not
integrated in the source package).

> > And when we have +svnXXXX we are indeed newer than the upstream released
> > tarball and the information is correct! So stripping that part would be a
> > mistake.
>
> IMHO it would be better to strip that part with a dversionmangle. However,
> DEHS currently compares with $upstream le $debian so those packages are
> marked as up to date.

I don't know what makes you say better, some aesthetic consideration? In
any case, watch files are not supposed to be a burden to maintain. So I'm
against such modifications.

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog

Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/


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


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:56 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.