Re: changelog practice, unfinalised vs UNRELEASED vs ~version
Simon McVittie writes ("Re: changelog practice, unfinalised vs UNRELEASED vs ~version"):
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 at 12:53:40 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > We could decorate the suite instead, but that does not have any
> > effect on generated binaries.
>
> It does have an effect on the changelog inside the source and binary
> packages,
True. But I still think it would be a good idea for unreleased
binaries to show up as such in the dpkg database.
> and on the changes file (which is precisely the signed
> instruction to the archive,
(Of course such things should not end up signed, but, this point is
well-made.)
How about the following, which provides more flexibility for what
individual users want:
* Unfinalised changeslogs should contain UNRELEASED in either
the suite name or the version number. (Currently there is
no consensus about this.)
* Where the suite contains UNRELEASED, it SHOULD NOT be simply
`UNRELEASED'. It should be `unstable-UNRELEASED' or
`experimental-UNRELEASED' or such.
* Tools which generates .changes files (specifically,
dpkg-genchanges) should, if they find that the version contains
UNRELEASED and the suite does not, append UNRELEASED to the suite.
(This is to help save downstreams etc.)
* The Debian archive will be taught to reject anything with a version
containing UNRELEASED (as I proposed before).
> As I noted on #542747, this property of changes files also means that if
> a Debian derivative (or an addon repository like apt.postgresql.org) has
> DD contributors, then that derivative should avoid using a Debian suite
> name as its suite name. This is because anyone obtaining a DD-signed
> .changes file for that addon repository could upload it to the main
> Debian repository, and it would normally be accepted into the suite
> of the same name. apt.postgresql.org seems to be one of the few addon
> repositories that does this (IMO) correctly, by using a distinct suite
> name (in their case jessie-pgdg).
Yes.
> I can't help wondering whether changes files ought to include some
> globally unique indication of the project in which the change is
> requested
Yes, they should.
> (for instance debian.org, ubuntu.com or [apt.]postgresql.org);
> but at the moment they don't, and I don't see an obvious place in the
> workflow to declare "this is really for Debian" vs. "this is for
> apt.postgresql.org". Maybe at debsign time?
(`dgit push' already (thinks it) knows the answer to this question and
could insert the right information.)
I don't think debsign is the right place.
If the suite name is not globally unique, then the full qualification
should be in the changelog. Ie, the changelog should contain the
intended target archive.
Ian.
Reply to: