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

Re: [DebianGIS] Uploaded qgis 0.7.3-0.dgis.unstable.1 (source i386) to debian-gis



> > > Yes please, follow general indications about version naming
> > > scheme, that would avoid headaches in case of dist-upgrades...
> > 
> > What's the correct way to set the version from .dgis.unstable.1 to
> > .dgis.stable.1 ?
> > 
> > apt-get --compile source qgis
> > 
> > forces .unstable., I have not figured out how to make it set the
> > version to .stable.
> 
> I believe you need to set it in the changelog and rebuild:
> 
> qgis (0.7.3-0.dgis.stable.1) stable; urgency=low

Yes, that does it.

 
> Also build with -sa to include the orig.tar.gz in the upload.

I don't think that is needed as the orig.tar.gz is already there. I am
reusing your exact source+control files. This is just a binary backport,
so it should look like a new x.x-2 version? As such I have retained your
version numbers and changelog, just changed the version num and distro
target.

I now have the following (correctly versioned insternally):

libgdal1-grass_1.2.6-1.dgis.sarge.1_i386.deb
libgdal-grass_1.2.6-1.dgis.sarge.1_i386.changes
qgis_0.7.3-0.dgis.sarge.1_i386.changes
qgis_0.7.3-0.dgis.sarge.1_i386.deb
qgis-dev_0.7.3-0.dgis.sarge.1_i386.deb
qgis-plugin-grass_0.7.3-0.dgis.sarge.1_i386.deb

all install & work ok AFAICT.

I used "sarge" and not "stable" as I think that is more specific. I
don't think it very probable that someone will still have a package as 
old as these installed when etch is released, but the probablity is
still finite. It's the naming scheme security team uses...

Also libgdal1-grass had no (and has no) .dgis. tag in the version number. 
I added it here to prevent future confusion with the sid packages.
Otherwise it should have looked like libgdal1-grass_1.2.6-0.dgis...
                                                         ^^^
Who wants to upload them to the repository on Alioth? I don't have an
account and the upload instructions on the Wiki were somewhat vague last
time I looked.



Hamish



Reply to: