[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Maintaing an aptable archive with a potato - woody mixture

On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 13:35:56 -0800 (PST), "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry"
<shaleh@valinux.com> wrote:
>On 02-Nov-2000 Marc Haber wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:11:10 -0800 (PST), "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry"
>> <shaleh@valinux.com> wrote:
>>>As for taking woody packages and placing them in potato, the usual numbering
>>>scheme is:
>>>is foo_1.2-3.deb is from woody it becomes foo_1.2-0potato3.deb.
>> I tried some of that stuff today and found out that starting the
>> company debian releases at 0 doesn't work very well. First, the
>> package manual says that the debian revision starts at 1, not at 0.
>> Second, starting at 0 breaks the comparability. An example:
>the usual use of this versioning is back porting from unstable to stable.  So
>stable has foo 1.1, unstable has foo 1.2.

This is not the case for very static packages, or if some admin has
previously backported a unstable package to stable without tampering
with the version number.

>If the same version exists in both,
>then yes, you have to ensure the first number is bigger than what is already
>there.  Part of the idea here is that if the user updates, the backported
>package won't always be larger than versions in later releases.

Looks like a "can't have all" situation. When I have
foo_2.2-6company4, I can't automatically update to foo_2.2-5 when it
appears. However, the same would have happened if I started at 1 and
released 6 new versions. That way, I'd be at 6company4, too.

Thanks for your insights.


-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber          |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Karlsruhe, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15
Nordisch by Nature  | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29

Reply to: