On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:22:55AM +0300, Tuukka Pasanen wrote: > After reading couple times Debian Policy documentation packaging conventions > and especially'5.6.12.2. Special version conventions' chapter. I'm bit > confused about revision system. As MariaDB Foundation wants to provide > upstream packages and currently naming scheme conflicts when upgrading from > Buster to Bullseye something should be done to solve situation. > > Currently revision is for example: '10.6.7+maria~buster' which upgrades > '10.6.7+maria~bullseye' which is lexical orderly lower than first one.To > understand this bug report can be found here: > https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-28628 which contain more info about how > apt works with current situation. You indeed shouldn't put codenames into versions as codenames don't sort correctly. You should put release version numbers, like official stable updates and backports do (e.g. "[...]deb11[...]). > Thing that like to ask should revision it be more like '+maria~deb11' or > +mariadeb11. I understood that char '~' means it's build from upstream > version control not from official release tag. No, the only thing ~ means is "a tilde sorts before anything, even the end of a part". It only makes sense to use '+maria~deb11' if you are going to also release '+maria' that needs to sort after all of those, or if you are using/going to use some '+maria+foo' scheme(s) that, again, need to sort after all of '+maria~foo'. > So I like to know is there any common or tasked knowledge about how this can > be done correctlywhich I'm no aware of? If someone can point out that I'm > more than pleased to correct this thing. There are no policies governing version structures for unofficial packages, you should use whatever works for you. -- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature