Bug#682948: Incorrect versioning scheme disturbs upgrading
Package: blender Version: 2.63a-1 Severity: important Please don't change the versioning scheme, and don't use upstream version string a, b, etc. Old blender package for 2.49b used the package version 2.49.2 to avoid the upgrade issue. Changelog of 2.49.2~dfsg-1 says: This is actually 2.49b, but using a +dfsg suffix breaks comparing 2.49+dfsg and 2.49b+dfsg. Use .2 instead of b accordingly. And switch to using a ~dfsg suffix. So, 2.63a should be translated into 2.63.1 for the same reason. In my PPA in Launchpad, I have maintained blender trunk package for Ubuntu and the package version uses +svn suffix like 2.63.1+svn49102-0irie1~precise1. Since Debian package system compares the versions as 2.63a+svn 2.63+svn 2.63.1+svn, if the official Debian/Ubuntu package uses the wrong versioning scheme such as 2.63a, I can no longer provide the trunk packages having a version suffix +svn. -- IRIE Shinsuke ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#682948: Incorrect versioning scheme disturbs upgrading
I forgot to say that actually there were official deb packages using +cvs suffix in the past (ex. 2.25b+cvs.2003.02.17-1). So, +svn suffix might be used for the future versions of the official packages. I mean the versioning scheme like 2.63.1 is generally necessary, not only for my PPA's packages. -- IRIE Shinsuke ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#682948: Incorrect versioning scheme disturbs upgrading
On 12-07-27 at 10:02pm, IRIE Shinsuke wrote: I forgot to say that actually there were official deb packages using +cvs suffix in the past (ex. 2.25b+cvs.2003.02.17-1). So, +svn suffix might be used for the future versions of the official packages. I mean the versioning scheme like 2.63.1 is generally necessary, not only for my PPA's packages. I do not find it necessary for Debian to follow a naming scheme used in Ubuntu, just as upstream should not worry about Debian when they choose a naming scheme. Ubuntu developers are strongly encouraged to help maintain packages in Debian as a better alternative to try second-guess future naming of Debian packages. When Ubuntu introduces packages in their repos that does not exist in Debian, there is a real risk of diverging from Debian. It only makes sense to me to treat Debian as upstream to Ubuntu - not the opposite. Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#682948: Incorrect versioning scheme disturbs upgrading
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 severity 682948 wishlist thanks On 07/27/2012 09:12 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On 12-07-27 at 10:02pm, IRIE Shinsuke wrote: I forgot to say that actually there were official deb packages using +cvs suffix in the past (ex. 2.25b+cvs.2003.02.17-1). So, +svn suffix might be used for the future versions of the official packages. I mean the versioning scheme like 2.63.1 is generally necessary, not only for my PPA's packages. I do not find it necessary for Debian to follow a naming scheme used in Ubuntu, just as upstream should not worry about Debian when they choose a naming scheme. Ubuntu developers are strongly encouraged to help maintain packages in Debian as a better alternative to try second-guess future naming of Debian packages. When Ubuntu introduces packages in their repos that does not exist in Debian, there is a real risk of diverging from Debian. It only makes sense to me to treat Debian as upstream to Ubuntu - not the opposite. This is not an Ubuntu issue, but a PPA issue. Ubuntu at the moment syncs blender unchanged from Debian. So, I'm reducing this to severity wishlist as it doesn't affect an official archive. I'll leave it to Jonas to mark wontfix if he feels it's appropriate as I don't actively work on this. I'd suggest using the next release with a ~vcs suffix, so if there's a 2.63, do a 2.63a~svn upload. Also, this is only an issue for the release without a letter. AIUI, the version scheme has always been to follow upstream except in the case where upgrades would break. Since the +dfsg suffix is not needed anymore, the official packages no longer have an issue. I'd suggest you adjust your scripts to handle the upstream versioning appropriately. Thanks, MIcah -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlASrH8ACgkQTniv4aqX/VkWSQCghtfIZG8XfYV413xbZfRLpPRe yH0AoIj1ZHF05PfBHw/UhhLLZWsZFehF =Y1B4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#682948: Incorrect versioning scheme disturbs upgrading
On 12-07-27 at 09:58am, Micah Gersten wrote: This is not an Ubuntu issue, but a PPA issue. I don't care, really (and sorry I confused matters by mentioning a specific Debian derivative at all). What I care about is if packages follow our stream of changes - i.e. upstream/downstream relationships. Debian has the Blender project as upstream - not Ubuntu nor any PPA. Which makes any other deb package of blender downstream to Debian. I am happy to collaborate directly with any downstream of Debian, no matter if they are further down or directly derived from Debian. (maybe they are best off only coordinating with their direct upstream - but that is none of our concern, really). I'll leave it to Jonas to mark wontfix if he feels it's appropriate as I don't actively work on this. For the record I also do not work on this package specifically. I am a Debian Developer and involved in the Multimedia team, and care about our relationship with derivatives. I'd suggest using the next release with a ~vcs suffix, so if there's a 2.63, do a 2.63a~svn upload. Sorry, but I find it bad advice to try second-guess your upstream: You don't know if 2.63 will be followed by 2.63a (even if that was a pattern used by your upstream in the past)! Use ~ to indicate just below and + to indicate just above. NB! If you consider Debian upstream to you, then Debian (more than the Blender project) is where you should stay just above or just below. You are free to not consider Debian upstream to you - even if yor packaging is derived from Debian: DFSG-free software grants you the freedom to fork! Just please decide if you are playing with us or by yourself (e.g. file bugreports here only when playing with us). Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Bug#682948: Incorrect versioning scheme disturbs upgrading
Hi, 12/07/27, Matteo F. Vescovi wrote: I'm not going to use SVN revisions other than the stable releases. So Debian Blender package is not going to face this issue at all. Since I'm actually the only active maintainer for this package, I don't see any issue in naming using upstream's version numbering. Hmm... I see, that is what I have worried about. What about another numbering scheme using . between the minor version and the version character as follows? 2.63, 2.63.a, 2.63.b, ... This scheme is very similar to the upstream version numbering, and should never cause the upgrade issue even if a version suffix is necessary. -- IRIE Shinsuke ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
