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 02-18-2008, 02:05 AM
Russ Allbery
 
Default Proposed MBF: Debian upstream version higher than watch file-reported upstream version

Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:

>> Upstream stopped doing real releases a while back although hopefully
>> will again do some someday. Currently, all that's available is nightly
>> snapshots. I can:
>>
>> * Keep pointing the watch file at the actual official release location in
>> the hope that upstream will eventually release a newer official version.
>>
>> * Point the watch file at the daily snapshots and have it always be out of
>> date because I'm not going to release new versions of gnubg daily.
>>
>> * Delete the watch file.
>>
>> Which would you rather I do? I personally think the first option is
>> the best, which is why I'm doing it, but I don't care that much.
>
> I would probably have kept the version number at 0.14.3 and append
> +snapshotYYYYMMDD.

That would imply that this is a snapshot of 0.14.3, or at worst the next
version. It's not; upstream considers it to be a snapshot of 0.16.
That's the version number the program displays in all of its dialog boxes
and so forth. There was a 0.15 after 0.14.3 as well; it was just never
released as anything other than a CVS snapshot.

I don't version the stuff, I just try to package it. But I do think
that the version of the Debian package should reflect upstream's version
unless upstream's version is completely impossible.

> However if I only were able to choose between those three I would choose
> the first one.

Yeah, that's pretty much where I'm at.

> But I do wonder why upstream hasn't released any version, and guessing
> this:, but updated the changelog or a similar file you use to know that
> the latest version is 0.16

Your guess is as good as mine. I've asked and didn't get any answer. As
near as I can tell, they all really like hacking on GNU Backgammon, but
none of them like doing release management. (Some of them use Windows and
do periodic builds from CVS snapshots, which may have something to do with
it.)

> By the way, I've been working on uscan and my changes can be expected to
> be available within some days. One of the features I've been working on
> is #395439 which might be helpful in your situation.

I don't see how it would help with this in particular, although I can
think of some other things it would be helpful for.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-18-2008, 12:09 PM
Michal Čihař
 
Default Proposed MBF: Debian upstream version higher than watch file-reported upstream version

Hi

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:41:34 -0600
Raphael Geissert <atomo64@gmail.com> wrote:

> Michal Čihař <nijel@debian.org>
> gammu

The problem with this is that there are stable versions, for which I
use watch file and are uploaded to unstable. Testing versions I put
(usually) to experimental and I don't change watch file there. Is it
really that big problem that packages in experimental don't have
absolutely correct watch file?

--
Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:17 AM.

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