Re: Mustang, please sponsor

["Nelson A. de Oliveira" <naoliv@gmail.com>]

Hi!

On Feb 6, 2008 4:23 PM, Morten Kjeldgaard <mok@bioxray.au.dk> wrote:
> On 05/02/2008, at 16.37, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> > Agreed? :-)
>
> Heh, not quite actually... :-)

That's good ;-)

> 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.

You need to use 3.0+p1 only if you use the new tarball.
With the old one the version will be 3.0 only.

> 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

I think that not.
You will need to keep the +p1 for every update that you do in your
package. For example, the next revision will be 3.0-2+p1, 3.0-3+p1,
etc.
binNMUs will be 3.0-1+p1+b1 (really strange, uh?)
security update for older releases will be 3.0-1lenny1+p1 or 3.0-1+p1lenny1?
Ubuntu syncs: 3.0-1ubuntu1+p1 or 3.0-1+p1ubuntu1?
NMUs: 3.0-1.1+p1 or 3.0-1+p1.1?

I see that using +p1 on the revision version will only complicate
things :-) (somebody correct me if I am wrong, please).

Using the old tarball + patch via dpatch will be 3.0-1 only, without
the need to say on the version string that we are applying a patch.

If you want to notify the users that this version is updated, you can
use debian/changelog and/or README.Debian.

It is like emboss, for example.
See: http://packages.qa.debian.org/e/emboss/news/20080128T113206Z.html

An official patch is included, only incrementing the revision number
of the package and without adding any kind of suffixes.

> 2) new tarball including upstream's patches to 3.0      -->
> mustang_3.0+p1-1  --> tarball = mustang_3.0+p1.orig.tar.gz

This one is right.

> So, while that is my reasoning, I will commit to whatever scheme this
> list recommends :-)

I keep my "old tarball + patch = 3.0-1, new tarball = 3.0+p1-1" :-)
But lets see what the other members of the list have to say, right?

Best regards,
Nelson