Re: Mustang, please sponsor
On 05/02/2008, at 16.37, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
So we have:
3.0.1 > 3.0+p1 > 3.0
There won't be problems if using 3.0+p1, for example.
Agreed? :-)
Heh, not quite actually... :-)
The way I've done it is apply upstreams patches via the dpatch system
to the old tarball. When the package version is named 3.0+p1, the
somewhat confusing thing is that upstreams tarball gets the name
mustang_3.0+p1.orig.tar.gz even though it does not contain the patch.
This snag is avoided when the patch level "p1" is in the release
string, and it will make it clear that the patch was added at the
packaging level. Therefore, I think the logical naming scheme would be:
1) old tarball + upstream's patches in debian/patches -->
mustang_3.0-1+p1 --> tarball = mustang_3.0.orig.tar.gz
2) new tarball including upstream's patches to 3.0 -->
mustang_3.0+p1-1 --> tarball = mustang_3.0+p1.orig.tar.gz
With this scheme, the orig.tar.gz gets the "right" name according to
it's content, and it is also possible to see from the name_version-
release string what is going on wrt. the patch level.
And, with this scheme, the upstream patched (new tarball) 3.0+p1-1 is
able to upgrade the debian patched (old tarball) 3.0-1+p1 which I
think is a reasonable behaviour.
So, while that is my reasoning, I will commit to whatever scheme this
list recommends :-)
Cheers,
Morten
Reply to: