www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - D-Apt package numbers

reply Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
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.
=20
--=20
Russel.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n=
et
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
Mar 20
parent reply Matthias Klumpp <mak debian.org> writes:
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). So, if d-apt is doing something like this, everything is fine :-)
Mar 20
parent Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
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:
=20
 I see that D-Apt has the Debian revision number on packages=C2=A0
 starting at
 0. I had understood that the policy was to start at 1.
=20 For stuff in *Debian* that is true, anything not in Debian should=C2=A0 start at zero and add a "repository tag" to the Debian revision,=C2=A0 if the package is new or has a new upstream version in their=C2=A0 repository. E.g. in Ubuntu, if the upstream version is "1.0", the revision=C2=A0 Ubuntu chooses is "1.0-0ubuntu1". If a Debian package is=C2=A0 modified, the "ubuntuX" tag is added to the Debian revision. This ensures that Debian packages are preferred if they are=C2=A0 available and that users as well as the Debian package maintainer=C2=A0 knows where stuff was coming from when people report bugs (less=C2=A0 of an issue on Ubuntu and other derivatives, there the tags are=C2=A0 required to properly produce deltas between Debian and the=C2=A0 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 otherplace= s that Debian. :-) =20
 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? --=20 Russel. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder ekiga.n= et 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
Mar 20