Re: Epoch version for google-authenticator
On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 01:06:13PM +0800, SZ Lin (林上智) wrote: Hi all, I'm working on fixing bugs (including RC) on google-authenticator[1] which name should be "google-authenticator-libpam" instead. [1] https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/google-authenticator [2] https://github.com/google/google-authenticator-libpam I intend to import the new upstream release, but the current upstream version changed the versioning scheme and thus epoch is needed to avoid the latest version lower than the previous one, as shown below. = Previous version: 20170702-2 Proposed version: 1:1.08-1 = Have you considered something like 20200301+1.08-1 ?
Re: Epoch version for google-authenticator
Hi SZ Lin (林上智) 於 2020年3月5日 週四 下午6:39寫道： > > Hi Scott, > > Scott Kitterman 於 2020年3月1日 週日 下午1:28寫道： > > > > On Sunday, March 1, 2020 12:06:13 AM EST SZ Lin (林上智) wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I'm working on fixing bugs (including RC) on google-authenticator[1] which > > > name should be "google-authenticator-libpam" instead. > > > > > > [1] https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/google-authenticator > > > [2] https://github.com/google/google-authenticator-libpam > > > > > > I intend to import the new upstream release, but the current upstream > > > version changed the versioning scheme and thus epoch is needed to avoid > > > the > > > latest version lower than the previous one, as shown below. > > > > > > = > > > Previous version: 20170702-2 > > > Proposed version: 1:1.08-1 > > > = > > > > > > I've contacted the package maintainer in January but got no response so > > > far. > > > So I plan to upload the package via the NMU process. > > > > > > Any feedback is welcome. > > > > I'm only commenting about the epoch, since I don't know enough about the > > situation to have an opinion on if doing this via NMU is appropriate. > > > > Since you say the package is incorrectly named, would it make more sense to > > rename the package now? Then you wouldn't need an epoch at all. > > Yes, it makes sense to me. > > Thanks for your comment. Uh, NAK. Since the name of the binary package is not changed, but the source package name instead, I think the epoch is still needed in this case. = Previous version: 20170702-2 Proposed version: 1:1.08-1 = SZ > > SZ > > > > > Scott K
Re: Epoch version for google-authenticator
-- SZ Lin (林上智) , http://people.debian.org/~szlin Debian Developer, debian.org.tw Administrator 4096R/ 178F 8338 B314 01E3 04FC 44BA A959 B38A 9561 F3F9 SZ Lin (林上智) 於 2020年3月5日 週四 下午6:39寫道： > > Hi Scott, > > Scott Kitterman 於 2020年3月1日 週日 下午1:28寫道： > > > > On Sunday, March 1, 2020 12:06:13 AM EST SZ Lin (林上智) wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I'm working on fixing bugs (including RC) on google-authenticator[1] which > > > name should be "google-authenticator-libpam" instead. > > > > > > [1] https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/google-authenticator > > > [2] https://github.com/google/google-authenticator-libpam > > > > > > I intend to import the new upstream release, but the current upstream > > > version changed the versioning scheme and thus epoch is needed to avoid > > > the > > > latest version lower than the previous one, as shown below. > > > > > > = > > > Previous version: 20170702-2 > > > Proposed version: 1:1.08-1 > > > = > > > > > > I've contacted the package maintainer in January but got no response so > > > far. > > > So I plan to upload the package via the NMU process. > > > > > > Any feedback is welcome. > > > > I'm only commenting about the epoch, since I don't know enough about the > > situation to have an opinion on if doing this via NMU is appropriate. > > > > Since you say the package is incorrectly named, would it make more sense to > > rename the package now? Then you wouldn't need an epoch at all. > > Yes, it makes sense to me. > > Thanks for your comment. > > SZ > > > > > Scott K
Re: Epoch version for google-authenticator
Hi Scott, Scott Kitterman 於 2020年3月1日 週日 下午1:28寫道： > > On Sunday, March 1, 2020 12:06:13 AM EST SZ Lin (林上智) wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I'm working on fixing bugs (including RC) on google-authenticator[1] which > > name should be "google-authenticator-libpam" instead. > > > > [1] https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/google-authenticator > > [2] https://github.com/google/google-authenticator-libpam > > > > I intend to import the new upstream release, but the current upstream > > version changed the versioning scheme and thus epoch is needed to avoid the > > latest version lower than the previous one, as shown below. > > > > = > > Previous version: 20170702-2 > > Proposed version: 1:1.08-1 > > = > > > > I've contacted the package maintainer in January but got no response so far. > > So I plan to upload the package via the NMU process. > > > > Any feedback is welcome. > > I'm only commenting about the epoch, since I don't know enough about the > situation to have an opinion on if doing this via NMU is appropriate. > > Since you say the package is incorrectly named, would it make more sense to > rename the package now? Then you wouldn't need an epoch at all. Yes, it makes sense to me. Thanks for your comment. SZ > > Scott K
Re: Epoch version for google-authenticator
On Sunday, March 1, 2020 12:06:13 AM EST SZ Lin (林上智) wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm working on fixing bugs (including RC) on google-authenticator[1] which > name should be "google-authenticator-libpam" instead. > > [1] https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/google-authenticator > [2] https://github.com/google/google-authenticator-libpam > > I intend to import the new upstream release, but the current upstream > version changed the versioning scheme and thus epoch is needed to avoid the > latest version lower than the previous one, as shown below. > > = > Previous version: 20170702-2 > Proposed version: 1:1.08-1 > = > > I've contacted the package maintainer in January but got no response so far. > So I plan to upload the package via the NMU process. > > Any feedback is welcome. I'm only commenting about the epoch, since I don't know enough about the situation to have an opinion on if doing this via NMU is appropriate. Since you say the package is incorrectly named, would it make more sense to rename the package now? Then you wouldn't need an epoch at all. Scott K signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Epoch version for google-authenticator
Hi all, I'm working on fixing bugs (including RC) on google-authenticator[1] which name should be "google-authenticator-libpam" instead. [1] https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/google-authenticator [2] https://github.com/google/google-authenticator-libpam I intend to import the new upstream release, but the current upstream version changed the versioning scheme and thus epoch is needed to avoid the latest version lower than the previous one, as shown below. = Previous version: 20170702-2 Proposed version: 1:1.08-1 = I've contacted the package maintainer in January but got no response so far. So I plan to upload the package via the NMU process. Any feedback is welcome. SZ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
