Re: libc5 uploads for bo
Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> bo-unstable unstable
> old package 1.2-4.bo 1.2-5
> new package 1.2-5.bo 1.2-6
>
> On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
> > I read less than _all_ the unstable versions of that package,
> > otherways you could upgrade a libc6 to a libc5).
>
> You're right! I'll try to fix the rules:
>
> 1. The "bo" and "hamm" versions should get different version
> numbers (e.g. for bug reports)
>
> 2. The "bo" version has to be always less than the "hamm" version
>
> 3. Of course, the list of "bo" and the list of "hamm" versions
> have to be in increasing order.
>
> I think we have to use epochs then:
>
> bo-unstable unstable
> old package 1.2-4.bo 1:1.2-4
> new package 1.2-5.bo 1:1.2-5
No need of epochs:
1. The "bo" and "hamm" versions should get different version
numbers (e.g. for bug reports)
2. The "bo" version has to be always less than the _lower_
"hamm" version (but higher than the previous bo version).
bo-unstable unstable
last bo package 1.2-4 ---
old package 1.2-4.5 1.2-5
new package 1.2-4.6 1.2-6
newer package 1.2-4.7 1.2-7
non-maintainer 1.2-4.7.1 1.2-7.1
This way all future "bo" version will be 1.4<"bo"<1.5.
For example, untill last week there was two groff packages:
groff_1.10-3 in stable and groff_1.10-4 in unstable.
While I was working to groff_1.10-5, I had to fix a security bug and I
released a new version for stable. It was simply 1.10-5 compliled for
libc5, so I named it groff_1.10-3.5 , to say that it was equivalent to
version -5 , but between 3 and 4.
If you want to add a word like "bo", then it's possible to simply insert
it in the version numbers:
bo-unstable unstable
last bo package 1.2-4 ---
old package 1.2-4.bo5 1.2-5
new package 1.2-4.bo6 1.2-6
newer package 1.2-4.bo7 1.2-7
non-maintainer 1.2-4.bo7.1 1.2-7.1
Consider that the versions on the same row usually will come from the
same sources level, because generally who do this uses the patched
source fron unstable and recompile under bo: need only to change
debian/changelog's first line.
What about this?
* after a package has been released for "unstable", all subsequent
versions released for "stable" (or stable-new??) would have a
version number between (major than) the last "stable" version
and (minor than) the _first_ "unstable" one, to prevent accidental
unwanted upgrade from a libc6 version to a libc5 one.
This is achieved continuing to use the last "stable_only" version
number, appending to it the version used in the corresponding
"unstable" release, with (or without) the word "bo" in the middle.
Fabrizio
--
| fpolacco@icenet.fi fpolacco@debian.org fpolacco@pluto.linux.it
| Pluto Leader - Debian Developer & Happy Debian 1.3.1 User - vi-holic
| 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E
> Just because Red Hat do it doesn't mean it's a good idea. [Ian J.]
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: