Correct version and revision of upstream packaged Debian package
Hello, After reading couple times Debian Policy documentation packaging conventions and especially'5.6.12.2. Special version conventions' chapter. I'm bit confused about revision system. As MariaDB Foundation wants to provide upstream packages and currently naming scheme conflicts when upgrading from Buster to Bullseye something should be done to solve situation. Currently revision is for example: '10.6.7+maria~buster' which upgrades '10.6.7+maria~bullseye' which is lexical orderly lower than first one.To understand this bug report can be found here: https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-28628 which contain more info about how apt works with current situation. Thing that like to ask should revision it be more like '+maria~deb11' or +mariadeb11. I understood that char '~' means it's build from upstream version control not from official release tag. As I seek for examples there is packages which just add '+' chars in revision when needed extra stuff and then revision is just build number without . So I like to know is there any common or tasked knowledge about how this can be done correctlywhich I'm no aware of? If someone can point out that I'm more than pleased to correct this thing. Sincerely, Tuukka
Re: Correct version and revision of upstream packaged Debian package
Hi Tuukka, * Tuukka Pasanen [2022-05-20 10:22]: Currently revision is for example: '10.6.7+maria~buster' which upgrades '10.6.7+maria~bullseye' which is lexical orderly lower than first one.To understand this bug report can be found here: https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-28628 which contain more info about how apt works with current situation. Thing that like to ask should revision it be more like '+maria~deb11' or +mariadeb11. I understood that char '~' means it's build from upstream version control not from official release tag. As I seek for examples there is packages which just add '+' chars in revision when needed extra stuff and then revision is just build number without . Your understanding is a bit oversimplified, and that is the source of your confusion. There are two aspects to your question: For the actual sorting order of debian versions, you can read the deb-version(5) manpage [1]. The tilde '~' character is special because it sorts before anything else, even the empty string, but it has no inherent meaning. For the meaning of version numbers, there are conventions for different use-cases. They are designed to create a sane ordering of versions, so packages update smoothly the way you would expect. One such convention is the backport suffix ~bpo. The idea is that you can have a version 1.4 in an old release (let's say Debian 11), backport version 1.5 from testing, and give it the version 1.5~bpo11. This way, it will be considered newer than any 1.4 package (even 1.4.999), but still older than the original 1.5, so if you ever upgrade your system to the next Debian release, the backported version will be replaced by the original package automatically. Like all conventions, it is somewhat arbitrary, and there are other schemes that would achieve the same effect. The conventions used in Debian just happen to be thoroughly tested and work for a wide range of edge cases. Cheers Timo [1] https://manpages.debian.org/unstable/dpkg-dev/deb-version.5.en.html -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ╭╮ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ │ Timo Röhling │ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ │ 9B03 EBB9 8300 DF97 C2B1 23BF CC8C 6BDD 1403 F4CA │ ⠈⠳⣄ ╰╯ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Correct version and revision of upstream packaged Debian package
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:22:55AM +0300, Tuukka Pasanen wrote: > After reading couple times Debian Policy documentation packaging conventions > and especially'5.6.12.2. Special version conventions' chapter. I'm bit > confused about revision system. As MariaDB Foundation wants to provide > upstream packages and currently naming scheme conflicts when upgrading from > Buster to Bullseye something should be done to solve situation. > > Currently revision is for example: '10.6.7+maria~buster' which upgrades > '10.6.7+maria~bullseye' which is lexical orderly lower than first one.To > understand this bug report can be found here: > https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-28628 which contain more info about how > apt works with current situation. You indeed shouldn't put codenames into versions as codenames don't sort correctly. You should put release version numbers, like official stable updates and backports do (e.g. "[...]deb11[...]). > Thing that like to ask should revision it be more like '+maria~deb11' or > +mariadeb11. I understood that char '~' means it's build from upstream > version control not from official release tag. No, the only thing ~ means is "a tilde sorts before anything, even the end of a part". It only makes sense to use '+maria~deb11' if you are going to also release '+maria' that needs to sort after all of those, or if you are using/going to use some '+maria+foo' scheme(s) that, again, need to sort after all of '+maria~foo'. > So I like to know is there any common or tasked knowledge about how this can > be done correctlywhich I'm no aware of? If someone can point out that I'm > more than pleased to correct this thing. There are no policies governing version structures for unofficial packages, you should use whatever works for you. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Correct version and revision of upstream packaged Debian package
Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin (2022-05-20 10:10:34) >> On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:22:55AM +0300, Tuukka Pasanen wrote: > > Thing that like to ask should revision it be more like '+maria~deb11' or > > +mariadeb11. I understood that char '~' means it's build from upstream > > version control not from official release tag. Use suffix "+maria1" (where "1" is bumped for each new release you make derived from same Debian package. > It only makes sense to use '+maria~deb11' if you are going to > also release '+maria' that needs to sort after all of those, or if you are > using/going to use some '+maria+foo' scheme(s) that, again, need to sort > after all of '+maria~foo'. Not true: It *is* helpful that you include a "distro label" as part of your version suffix - as documented here: https://wiki.debian.org/Derivatives/Guidelines#Packages Please consider registering your Debian addendum as our derivatives census at https://wiki.debian.org/Derivatives/Census Thanks for asking this question, - 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: signature
Re: Correct version and revision of upstream packaged Debian package
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:52:08AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > It only makes sense to use '+maria~deb11' if you are going to > > also release '+maria' that needs to sort after all of those, or if you are > > using/going to use some '+maria+foo' scheme(s) that, again, need to sort > > after all of '+maria~foo'. > > Not true: It *is* helpful that you include a "distro label" as part of > your version suffix - as documented here: > https://wiki.debian.org/Derivatives/Guidelines#Packages For the avoidance of doubt, I meant using ~ as a separator. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Adding epoch to node-markdown-it to correct a wrong upstream version
On വ്യാ, മേയ് 19 2022 at 04:39:23 വൈകു -05:00:00 -05:00:00, Richard Laager wrote: On 5/19/22 05:42, Pirate Praveen wrote: So current version in the archive is 22.2.3+dfsg+~12.2.3-1 The fixed version we want is 10.0.0+dfsg+~cs16.6.17-1 I have no dog in this fight as they say, but... How fast does upstream bump versions? With a 10.x, I wonder if it might be relatively frequently. Would they likely exceed 22 in the near future? If so, you might just do 22.3+really10.0.0+dfsg+~cs16.6.17-1 and when they get to 23, it goes back to normal, without the epoch. You can see the release history here https://www.npmjs.com/package/markdown-it?activeTab=versions 13.0.0 - a month ago 12.0.0 - 2 years ago 11.0.0 - 2 years ago 10.0.0 - 3 years ago So I don't think waiting ~10 years (or even 5 years) is a reasonable option here.
Re: Adding epoch to node-markdown-it to correct a wrong upstream version
Am 20.05.22 um 11:23 schrieb Pirate Praveen: On വ്യാ, മേയ് 19 2022 at 04:39:23 വൈകു -05:00:00 -05:00:00, Richard Laager wrote: On 5/19/22 05:42, Pirate Praveen wrote: So current version in the archive is 22.2.3+dfsg+~12.2.3-1 The fixed version we want is 10.0.0+dfsg+~cs16.6.17-1 I have no dog in this fight as they say, but... How fast does upstream bump versions? With a 10.x, I wonder if it might be relatively frequently. Would they likely exceed 22 in the near future? If so, you might just do 22.3+really10.0.0+dfsg+~cs16.6.17-1 and when they get to 23, it goes back to normal, without the epoch. You can see the release history here https://www.npmjs.com/package/markdown-it?activeTab=versions 13.0.0 - a month ago 12.0.0 - 2 years ago 11.0.0 - 2 years ago 10.0.0 - 3 years ago So I don't think waiting ~10 years (or even 5 years) is a reasonable option here. You could ask your upstream to bump the version number to 23. But I can understand if you don't want to bother your upstream with this Debian specific problem. Regards, Michael OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Debian: perl6 package is replaced by raku package
Hi Some of you may have wondered by perl6 package vanished from Debian Bookworm (aka testing). Belatedly following the rename of Perl6 language to Raku, I've renamed most Debian packages related to Raku. Among them, perl6 package was renamed raku. You can now install raku package to get rakudo compiler and the raku modules that are available in Debian [1]. All the best Dod PS: this announcement does not apply to Debian 11 (aka stable or bullseye) [1] https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=pkg-rakudo-devel%40lists.alioth.debian.org
