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: http://packages.qa.debian.org/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 ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpZwkPsresxh.pgp
Description: PGP signature