On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 09:37:14AM +1000, Kai Hendry wrote: > Just wondering about packaging snapshots of a package. > > Ok, snapshots could be known as "backups". Here I am talking about > pulling from say a Subversion repository and building a package. > > For now I want to do this just to keep tabs on what upstream has > planned. Not so much for unstable... > > > > I remember being a little bewildered by the version string in Debian. Is > this OK? > > frodo$ apt-cache show irssi-snapshot | grep Version: > Version: 0.8.6+cvs.20031114-1 > > And how does that compare to: > > frodo$ apt-cache show gcc-snapshot | grep Version: > Version: 20051008-1 > > > Is this documented somewhere? > > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Version > > Could be elaborated on with examples. Be good if the dates were iso8601 > style: > date --iso-8601=hours > > 2005-10-18T16+1000 > > But then they would be twice as long... > > Best wishes,
(I'm no DD; just my personal opinion)
Hi,
The New Maintainer's Guide suggests (section 2.3):
===
] Also check for the exact version of the program (to be included in the
] package version). If that piece of software is not numbered with
] versions like X.Y.Z, but with some kind of date, feel free to use that
] date as the version number, prepended with a "0.0." (just in case
] upstream people one day decide to release a nice version like 1.0).
] So, if the release or snapshot date was 19th of December, 1998, you
] can use the version string of 0.0.19981219.
===
(which explains BTW why gcc-snapshot does not have any leading upstream
version number - it's explicitly defined as "snapshot-only package",
which will never see an upstream release like "1.0" or similar)
So as your package _does_ have a numbering and you're packaging
intermediate snapshots, I'd combine the two to
"<last released upstream version>+<snapshot date>"
I think increasing the resolution to hours is pointless, since there's only
one dinstall run per day. - Including the dashes in the date seems like
a matter of taste: the following "survey" was done on testing...
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~>egrep -c "^Version: .*[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2}*"
/var/lib/dpkg/available
23
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~>egrep -c "^Version: .*[0-9]{4}\.[0-9]{2}\.[0-9]{2}*"
/var/lib/dpkg/available
143
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~>egrep -c "^Version: .*[0-9]{8}.*" /var/lib/dpkg/available
796
Regards,
Jan
--
Jan C. Nordholz
<jckn At gmx net>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
