Re: Squid 1.0.9 available at ftp.fuller.edu
On 26 Aug 1996, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> In article <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.93.960825071446.6160B-100000@waterf.org>,
> Christoph Lameter <clameter@fuller.edu> wrote:
> >?? Why double the work. This was an ad for the debianized version.
>
> Oh I am sorry. I misunderstood. I've been keeping a debianized version
> of squid since squid 1.0.3 at least, and I've been emailing with the
> original maintainer (Craig Sanders) about it. It has been my intent
> for quite some time to make the Interim release but I didn't hear
> anything anymore from Craig.
sorry, i'm a bit snowed under at work and am finding it difficult to keep
up with my mail.
when we last spoke on this subject you were going to release your interim
version of the squid package.
In the meantime I've made a package for 1.0.9 but havent released it
because I can't seem to get dpkg to recognise that version 1.0.9 is newer
than 1.0beta16. I have it working on one of my systems, but getting it
running was nowhere near as simple & straightforward as it should be.
setting the epoch ':1' in the debian.rules file didn't seem to help
- in fact, it made things worse. dselect is still not recognising
1.0.9 as being newer than 1.0beta16. dpkg seemed to get confused about
the version number and thought it was installing version 0.9 when i
installed it by hand.
This did something weird to /var/lib/dpkg/status, which prevented
dselect from Updating available packages (bombed with a comment about
corrupted status file), which meant that dselect could not upgrade the
system either. I had to vi the status file to fix it up.
** NOTE TO IAN J: it looks like there should be some sanity checking
** of version/epoch numbers, to prevent package maintainers from doing
** stupid things which will corrupt the status file.
this is probably due to my misunderstanding of how to use epochs in
version numbers.
In debian.rules, I'm doing:
package=squid
version=1:1.0.9
debian=1
this is obviously wrong. i should re-read the documentation to find out
what i'm doing wrong.
one thing i'm sure of, though: in any future packages of mine which have
'beta' or similar string in the version number, I'm going to add extra
characters to force it to sort lower than any subsequent version. e.g.
instead of version "1.0beta16" i'll use something like "1.0..beta16"
If you want to take over maintaining the package for debian, you're quite
welcome. It seems obvious that I really don't have the time at the
moment to give the squid package the attention it deserves. It's an
important and useful package and my inability to keep it up to date
is causing the debian version to fall farther and farther behind the
upstream release.
I'll mail you what I have done so far (there's probably only one thing
that you might like to merge into your package...my postinst script now
checks if apache is installed, and then checks whether cachemgr.cgi is in
/var/web/cgi-bin. if it isn't, it offers to make a sym link from
/usr/lib/squid/cachemgr.cgi).
Craig
Reply to: