Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Ubuntu Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/ubuntu-development/)
-   -   Versioning of no-change rebuilds (http://www.linux-archive.org/ubuntu-development/268122-versioning-no-change-rebuilds.html)

Jordan Mantha 03-22-2009 10:42 PM

Versioning of no-change rebuilds
 
2009/3/22 Cody A.W. Somerville <cody-somerville@ubuntu.com>:
> Hello,
>
> *I've noticed recently that a very large number of rebuilds have been
> versioned by incrementing the Ubuntu revision instead of appending buildX. I
> was wondering if there was discussion on this that I had missed or if a
> number of folks lately had simply forgotten to use the correct convention?
> As I recall from reading the source of tools such as MoM, they specifically
> look for buildN like they look for ubuntuN.

You mean they're going from -X to -Xubuntu1 instead of -Xbuild1 ? If
an ubuntu revision already exists, bumping the ubuntu revision for a
rebuild is expected but should not be used if an ubuntu revision does
not exist.

-Jordan

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Jordan Mantha 03-22-2009 10:43 PM

Versioning of no-change rebuilds
 
2009/3/22 Cody A.W. Somerville <cody-somerville@ubuntu.com>:
> Hello,
>
> I've noticed recently that a very large number of rebuilds have been
> versioned by incrementing the Ubuntu revision instead of appending buildX. I
> was wondering if there was discussion on this that I had missed or if a
> number of folks lately had simply forgotten to use the correct convention?
> As I recall from reading the source of tools such as MoM, they specifically
> look for buildN like they look for ubuntuN.

You mean they're going from -X to -Xubuntu1 instead of -Xbuild1 ? If
an ubuntu revision already exists, bumping the ubuntu revision for a
rebuild is expected but should not be used if an ubuntu revision does
not exist.

-Jordan

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Colin Watson 03-22-2009 10:58 PM

Versioning of no-change rebuilds
 
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 04:43:06PM -0700, Jordan Mantha wrote:
> 2009/3/22 Cody A.W. Somerville <cody-somerville@ubuntu.com>:
> > I've noticed recently that a very large number of rebuilds have been
> > versioned by incrementing the Ubuntu revision instead of appending buildX. I
> > was wondering if there was discussion on this that I had missed or if a
> > number of folks lately had simply forgotten to use the correct convention?
> > As I recall from reading the source of tools such as MoM, they specifically
> > look for buildN like they look for ubuntuN.
>
> You mean they're going from -X to -Xubuntu1 instead of -Xbuild1 ? If
> an ubuntu revision already exists, bumping the ubuntu revision for a
> rebuild is expected but should not be used if an ubuntu revision does
> not exist.

Jordan is correct.

The purpose of the "ubuntu" substring in version numbers is to inhibit
automatic syncs from Debian. Accordingly, in cases where we need to
rebuild a package but don't need to inhibit syncs, we use the "buildN"
suffix. If there's already an "ubuntu" substring, then there is no need
for "buildN"; incrementing the Ubuntu revision part suffices and tends
to produce less unreadable version numbers.

I've certainly uploaded a lot of rebuilds recently, and to the best of
my knowledge have adhered to the correct conventions.

--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@ubuntu.com]

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:47 PM.

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