Re: Updated maint-guide contents, question on style, my thought
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:22:16PM +0100, Justin B Rye wrote:
> There are two types of packages.
> * binary package: these are ordinary installable packages in .deb
> format (or .udeb format, used by the Debian Installer);
> * source package: this is the name given to the set of files used as
> input to the Debian package-building process - usually a .tar.gz
> file, a .diff.gz and a .dsc file, whose functions will be
> explained later.
> Footnote: this terminology follows the analogy of program sourcecode
> being compiled into a binary. Never mind the fact that we're
> calling linux-source-2.6*.deb a binary package.
Instead, I created overview section in chronological order of packaging
> >> * upstream source version: the upstream source version is referred
> >> to as the upstream version.
> > This is inherited. I think we need to standarize to "upstream_version"
> > and "debian_revision" if possible.
Using them in example was confusing since "_" has special meaning.
I reorganized a lot around this issue.
> >> But this still isn't true - the "upstream_version" is the
> >> Policy-compliant version string used for the Debianised sources. If
> >> the upstream author uses a version string beginning with a letter
> >> then the "upstream_version" will be a different string.
> > Since this is a convoluted problem, let me think a bit more before
> > acting on them.
> I've ended up with something that's getting much longer:
> The version numbering of Debian packages is formed from up to three
> elements (see policy 5.6.12):
> * the epoch: this may occur as a number prefixed to the Debian
> version string to deal with hiccups in the numbering scheme;
> * the upstream_version component: this is the version number for the
> source package, based on (usually identical to) the number used by
> upstream for the source release.
> * the debian_revision component: this is a secondary label used to
> distinguish successive forms of the same upstream source release,
> as packaged for Debian.
> The complete Debian package version for a normal binary package is
> built up as upstream_version-debian_revision (or
> epoch:upstream_version-debian_revision if an epoch is needed). For
> "native" packages, with no separate upstream [see ...], only an
> upstream_version is needed.
I still kept away for epoch since that is something which should never
be used unless you made some versioning errors.
The string with <replaceable> and name of such string needs to be dealt
separately. I hope new "Workflow of the Debian package building"
> But is this really something that needs to be explained here anyway?
> Maybe it would fit better in 2.4.
That what I did as 2.1.