On Mon, 2017-03-20 at 09:29 +0000, Matthias Klumpp via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Monday, 20 March 2017 at 08:52:05 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: > > > > I see that D-Apt has the Debian revision number on packages > > starting at > > 0. I had understood that the policy was to start at 1. > > For stuff in *Debian* that is true, anything not in Debian should > start at zero and add a "repository tag" to the Debian revision, > if the package is new or has a new upstream version in their > repository. > E.g. in Ubuntu, if the upstream version is "1.0", the revision > Ubuntu chooses is "1.0-0ubuntu1". If a Debian package is > modified, the "ubuntuX" tag is added to the Debian revision. > This ensures that Debian packages are preferred if they are > available and that users as well as the Debian package maintainer > knows where stuff was coming from when people report bugs (less > of an issue on Ubuntu and other derivatives, there the tags are > required to properly produce deltas between Debian and the > derivative and to merge packages from Debian safely).
I have been focusing on https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-con trolfields.html#s-f-Version which doesn't admit the existence of otherplaces that Debian. :-) > So, if d-apt is doing something like this, everything is fine :-) I guess since DMD isn't allowed in Debian, but is in D-Apt the fact that it has the package name: dmd-bin_2.073.2-0_amd64.deb doesn't really raise a problem. Dub however is in both Debian and D- Apt, so for example: ./debian/pool/main/d/du b/dub_1.2.0-1_amd64.deb ./d-apt/pool/main/d/dub /dub_1.2.2-0_amd64.deb Clearly the numbers satisfy the formal rules, but are they right? -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part