Re: Package integration date into repository
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:20:26AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 27 Apr 2020 at 01:12:29 (+0200), l0f4r0@tuta.io wrote:
> > 26 avr. 2020 à 09:09 de andreimpopescu@gmail.com:
> >
> > > The changelog does not necessarily show when the package was uploaded,
> > > e.g. the package maintainer could prepare an upload (including the
> > > changelog entry) and upload days/weeks/months later.
> > >
> > > After uploading the package also has to be (re)built before becoming
> > > available on the mirrors.
> > >
> > Interesting. I'm not sure it makes things easier for me... ;)
> >
> > > What are you trying to achieve?
> > >
> > I just would like to make some correlation between when new code is publicly available (through GitHub for example) and when it's integrated into official Debian repositories.
> >
> > Maybe I can use section "news" on https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/my_package? I suppose there is no mention of stable (only experimental, unstable, testing and backports) into this section because testing becomes stable when the latter is released? If true, it would be handy to mark somewhere the transition between both repositories though.
> >
> > NB: we can take a common example if it's easier to understand each other: copyq
>
> Perhaps what you want is something like this:
>
> copyq-doc_3.7.3-1_all.deb 2019-02-08 17:40 890K
[SNIP]
>
That is giving you the date/time of that particular version of the
package. If the maintainer makes some Debian-only tweaks (e.g., to fix
something in a maintainer script) or cherry-picks an upstream commit and
drops it into the Debian patch series for the package, then updates
releases that updated Debian package, that will most likely be version
3.7.3-2 with some other date.
Depending on how you interpret the version number and date, it could
provide misleading information on the "correlation between when new code
is publicly available ... and when it's integrated into official Debian
repositories."
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
Reply to: