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

Re: Version to use in package for a program with non standard versioning

On Friday 30 December 2005 1:40 pm, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> As of November 2005, I've picked up maintainance of qd, the Folding@Home
> queue dumper, after it's author passed away in August 2005.

So it's a new source package; much as if it had been spun out of kfolding:

> I'm trying to create native Debian packages for qd, it's data file
> (qdinfo.dat) and another program to print the content of the data file
> (qdiprint).

Three components of one package. qd exists as a package built from kfolding 
source at version qd (1.0.0-rc2-4+b1).

qd 2.0.0 may be reasonable, or else 1.1.0.

You have sorted out the licence problems with qd? It's currently in contrib.

> Now for the problem I'm dealing with. qd doesn't use traditional
> versioning, it uses two values for it's version.

But that's internal versioning really - you could absorb that into your Debian 
versioning if you don't mind incrementing the Debian version each time the 
internal versions change. Just increment the minor version number each time 
the qdinfo version changes. How often does that happen?

> If I look at Section 2.3 of the New Maintainers Guide, it says I should
> use whatever non-standard versioning is used prefixed with "0.0.".

That's for a completely new package, this has some history in Debian so I'd 
say it's best to start at the previous version and increment that.

> Currently I have qd-0.0.033, qdinfo-0.0.20051226 and qdiprint-0.0.3.
> qdiprint doesn't have any versioning whatsoever, therefor I now keep my
> own in the traditional x.y.z format.

I may be wrong but I'd suggest a debian changelog entry of 2.0.0-1, creating 
qd_2.0.0-1_i386.deb etc.

Depends how much qd has changed since it was last uploaded as part of 
kfolding. 1.1.0-1 may be suitable.


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgpZwkPsresxh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: