Re: limits for package name and version (MBF alert: ... .deb filenames)
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> On 26/04/2011 01:50, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > Anyway - Summing up what I'm saying here, tags have a clear meaning: A
> > point where upstream wants us to base our efforts at, mid-devel-cycle
> > breakage should be at a minimum. So, instead of basing our packages
> > off arbitrary commit hashes, why not basing them off tags? I do not
> > believe it is unreasonable to request upstreams to do some tagging...
>
> Because, some times, upstreams don't release at all. See clutter-sharp for a
> good example of an upstream with not a single tag or release. For the record,
> I've requested an actual release multiple times before falling back upon
> packaging a git snapshot.
Then, you use UTC date+time, that's two digits for the best-practice leading
of "0.", plus 13 digits for YYYYMMDDTHHMM, which is quite precise enough
most of the time. Add two more for seconds, and it is almost always precise
enough to identify the head commit in a branch, and you already know which
branch of which tree because that information must be available and
up-to-date in debian/copyright. That still leaves enough space for the
debian revision, security updates, bin-NMUs, NMUs and backporting.
And you can supplement the version information with the full commit hash and
even the repo path in the debian/changelog entry for the upload.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: