Re: RFC: DEP-14: Recommended layout for Git packaging repositories
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 03:13:30PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2014, Ron wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 03:39:05PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Ron writes ("Re: RFC: DEP-14: Recommended layout for Git packaging repositories"):
> > > > Why include the epoch in tags at all?
> > >
> > > Because we want to be able to tell not just which tag was which but
> > > also what order they are in.
> >
> > Right, but this is git, so that information is also already known.
> >
> > That said I did consider that side of it too, but I'm having a hard
> > time thinking of an example where you would actually care about
> > ordering the tags for some task. Do you have one that comes to mind?
>
> The BTS needs it: it is the very base of version-aware bug state tracking.
> It builds the DAG by combining the DAGs extracted from the Debian changelogs
> of each branch of the package, AFAIK.
Right, gitweb, cgit, gitk, etc. are all going to do exactly the same
thing, take them from the DAG of the repo. They are unlikely to care
about how the tag names would textually sort (and even less likely to
sort them in the order that dpkg would consider them in).
> So, do we envision any sort of hook that would need to do something like
> version-aware state tracking?
If you have something that really needs the actual exact version of
the package, the only reliable way to do that is to look at the
debian/changelog for the ref of interest anyway. Otherwise you're
still back to the "how do unmangle an unrepresentable version"
problem. gitpkg does exactly this when it needs the real package
version.
(and re the other question on this, all the gitpkg tools and hooks
also mangle all illegal ref characters to '_' as well)
> > The ordering problem seems like one that could be fairly easily solved
> > in other ways, but that would mostly depend on what reasons people come
> > up with for actually needing that. Purely in 'dpkg order' might not
> > always be the most interesting order for some of those anyway.
>
> Well, the best example I have (the BTS) has no use for "dpkg order" :-)
Reply to: