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

Re: epoch bump request for protracker



On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 09:41:57AM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> Upstream renaming is a very rare (and AFAIK *only*) chance for you to
> actually get rid of epochs cleanly! I'd very much suggest you take this
> chance!
> 
> Basically what you do is rename everything and use the new version
> number, then you add transitional packages and for those you override
> version number generation in debian/rules and add an epoch *only* to the
> transitional packages.

I agree, please take the occasion of this rename and get rid of the
epoch!

However I have to be in disaccord with this example:

> override_dh_gencontrol:
> 	dh_gencontrol -pmy-transitional-package -- -v1:$(DEB_VERSION)
> 	dh_gencontrol --remaining-packages

I'd avoid using -v1:$(DEB_VERSION) and instead do something like
-v2.b37+really$(DEB_VERSION), so just to aovid an epoch also there.  You
may also build those transitional packages from the old source, and then
ask for RM once the +really version went into a stable release.

-- 
regards,
                        Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540      .''`.
More about me:  https://mapreri.org                             : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri                  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: