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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > 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 [email@example.com]
ubuntu-devel mailing list
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel