In #1003769, Andreas Metzler wrote: > 1. The upload introduces an epoch because the upstream version went from > yyyymmdd to 2.0.yyyymmdd. Given that the new version scheme seems to > have found acceptance in e.g. Fedora /I/ do not see a better way. Could > you ask about the epoch on debian-devel (as per policy > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#epochs-should-be-used-sparingly > ) - TIA.
As background, byacc was packaged by Dave Becket in 2005, switching
to my ftp area as upstream. In doing that, the versioning of the
package changed:
from
-- LaMont Jones <lam...@debian.org> Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:49:09 -0700
byacc (1.9.1-1) unstable; urgency=low
to
-- Dave Beckett <daj...@debian.org> Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:14:12 +0100
byacc (20050505-1) unstable; urgency=low
My (upstream) byacc tarballs have been named according to the patchdate.
The program itself identifies with the complete version using "-V" option,
which I added a few months before the Debian package change:
2005-05-04 Thomas E. Dickey <dic...@invisible-island.net>
* yacc.1: add -V option
* main.c: add -V option to print the version.
simplify option-parsing by moving the duplicate logic for setting flags
into
new function setflag().
* skeleton.c:
move the actual definition of YYMAJOR and YYMINOR to defs.h (as
numbers).
add YYPATCH here so it can be tested by applications.
* defs.h:
add macros to define VERSION in terms of the (numeric) YYMAJOR, YYMINOR
and
YYPATCH symbols.
* lalr.c, lr0.c, mkpar.c, defs.h, closure.c, warshall.c, output.c,
symtab.c:
reduce externs by making static the procedures that are not referenced
outside
the module in which they are defined.
* makefile.in:
the VERSION file holds the patch-date. Define YYPATCH, so this will be
compiled into the skeleton.
* VERSION: patch-level for byacc
The policy cited above says
Note that the purpose of epochs is to cope with situations where the
upstream version numbering scheme changes and to allow us to leave
behind serious mistakes. If you think that increasing the epoch is the
right solution, you should consult debian-devel and get consensus
before doing so (even in experimental).
The version policy here:
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#version
says
The version number of a package. The format is:
[epoch:]upstream_version[-debian_revision].
epoch
This is a single (generally small) unsigned integer. It may be omitted,
in which case zero is assumed.
Epochs can help when the upstream version numbering scheme changes, but
they must be used with care. You should not change the epoch, even in
experimental, without getting consensus on debian-devel first.
upstream_version
This is the main part of the version number. It is usually the version
number of the original (“upstream”) package from which the .deb file
has been made, if this is applicable. Usually this will be in the same
format as that specified by the upstream author(s); however, it may
need to be reformatted to fit into the package management system’s
format and comparison scheme.
The upstream version number (which is displayed using the "-V" option)
shows the full version rather than the patchdate used for naming the
tar files, e.g.,
byacc - 2.0 20220114
At the time Becket switched to my version of byacc, that would have
printed
byacc - 1.9 20050505
Since then,
a) Dave Becket stopped maintaining the package (in 2014), and
b) I released byacc 2.0 (September 10, 2019), to account for
integrating the back-tracking feature beginning in 2014.
Having Debian's package so far out of date is a nuisance, and on being
reminded of this a few months ago, I decided to update the package.
The Debian policy quoted above seems to assume that the Debian package
is good, and that some allowance must be made for problems in upstream.
However, it isn't that simple. Upstream identified the version in
a conventional manner, but not in a manner which the packager noticed
or found convenient for packaging. The upstream versioning scheme has
not changed -- but the package version does not use upstream's version.
Just changing this is also not simple. Adding the full (1.9 or 2.0
version to the Debian package runs into the problem that in Debian,
"2.0.20220114" is less than "20140422" because "2" is the part that
apt uses for comparison.
The Debian-style workaround for this is to add an epoch,
which I have done in
https://mentors.debian.net/package/byacc/
--
Thomas E. Dickey <dic...@invisible-island.net>
https://invisible-island.net
ftp://ftp.invisible-island.net
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
