Re: non-maint. libc5 version number (was: Re: Uploaded menu 1.5-5.1 (source i386) to erlangen)
[moved from debian-devel-changes to debian-devel]
joost witteveen wrote:
>
> Andreas has discussed this with me and I agreed. But I notice:
>
> > Changes:
> > menu (1.5-5.1) experimental; urgency=low
> > .
> > * non maintainer libc5/experimental release by Andreas Jellinghaus
>
> This would mean the libc5 version is compared as "newer" by dpkg
> than the libc6 version (1.5-5).
>
> So, I thought: maybe, when we make special libc5 releases
> of packages, we should decrease the debian-revision by one,
> and add a ".1" (so that in this case, we would have: 1.5-4.1).
> This would make dpkg do the right thing[1], but it would look somewhat
> funny for the users, Andreas' libc5 release of menu realy is
> menu_1.5-5 for libc5, and not menu_1.5-4.
>
> What do other think? (I remember the migration-to libc6 text saying
> that _maintainers_ of libc6 packages that make a libc5 release should
> always make a libc6 release right after, for just the same reason. But
> that doesn't really apply here, as it was a non-maintainer release
> to begin with).
Well, I can describe the way I've avoided the "dont-downgrade" problem
in man-db: I staqrted from the idea that we're not oblidged to supply
contigous numbering versions, but we can safely leave "holes" in the
scheme. So, doing the first libc6 version, I increased the version
number by 10, thinking that I would not need to release more that 10
versions before hamm will become 2.0 .
Then, when switching from hamm to bo for compiling a new version, I
simply change the top row in changelog. For example the last one were:
man-db (2.3.10-54) unstable; urgency=low
* (ver -54) => libc6 version, linked using libdb2 and explicit -lc
man-db (2.3.10-54) unstable; urgency=low
* (ver -44) => still libc5 compiled under debian-1.3.1
(=>experimental)
man-db (2.3.10-44) experimental; urgency=low
The first libc6 was -52 so, if I will ever need to release another libc5
version after -51 I'll use the non-maintainer dot scheme, just to stay
lower then -52 .
For a real non-maintainer upload, I suggest to use the last libc5
version adding to it the same number of the libc6 version. That is to
say that if 1.5-4 was the last libc5 version and 1.5-5 is the current
libc6 version that is being recompiled, then it could be 1.5-4.5, while
the following libc6 will be 1.5-6 and the parallel libc5 will be 1.5-4.6
It seems confusing, but in this way dpkg won't downgrade any libc6
version to a libc5 based, without noticing it.
just my 2pennia.
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
--
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: