hi Alec,
please stop mailing this thread and just use an epoch.
Before adding^wintroducing an epoch one should consult debian-devel@l.d.o,
you have done this, arguments were exchanged and (IMNSHO) no better
solution was found, so please do what has done to >1000 source packages
in the archive alr
On 03/07/2024 10:10, Philip Hands wrote:
Alec Leamas writes:
It seems better to take an "If we build it, they will come" approach.
New installs will likely get the Debian version without ever needing to
discover the PPA, and the rumour will spread (assuming the Debian
package works at least a
On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 09:27:03AM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian GNU|Linux) writes:
>
> > anyhow here's my 2¢:
> > according to you¹, upstream have simply botched their package
> > versioning, which i would consider *a bug*.
> > bugs cause pain.
>
> AIUI the botching w
Alec Leamas writes:
> On 02/07/2024 20:46, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>> Alec Leamas dijo [Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 01:59:26AM +0200]:
>>> So, at least three possible paths:
>>>
>>> 1. Persuade users to uninstall PPA packages before installing official
>>> packages and also generation 2 PPA packages with san
IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian GNU|Linux) writes:
> anyhow here's my 2¢:
> according to you¹, upstream have simply botched their package
> versioning, which i would consider *a bug*.
> bugs cause pain.
AIUI the botching was done by whoever put the PPA together.
If that's the same as upstream, fair
On 7/3/24 00:28, Alec Leamas wrote:
The upstream shall consider adopting 5 digit release version numbering
[...]
The upstream "shall" not do anything, they are open for discussions but
certainly not for dictates.
thou shalt not ask if thou wisheth for no answers.
(please keep in mind tha
Hi Milan,
On 02/07/2024 23:54, Milan Kupcevic wrote:
On 7/1/24 14:48, Alec Leamas wrote:
[...]
Hi Alec,
opencpn is currently in a beta phase targeting a 5.10.1 release. The
beta versions are like "5.9.2-beta2+dfsg-1ubuntu1~bpo2204.1". The
upstream policy is to use 5.9.2-beta2, 5.9.3-bet
On 7/1/24 14:48, Alec Leamas wrote:
[...]
Hi Alec,
opencpn is currently in a beta phase targeting a 5.10.1 release. The
beta versions are like "5.9.2-beta2+dfsg-1ubuntu1~bpo2204.1". The
upstream policy is to use 5.9.2-beta2, 5.9.3-beta3 so this ordering is,
although a bit strange, still
On 02/07/2024 20:46, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Alec Leamas dijo [Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 01:59:26AM +0200]:
So, at least three possible paths:
1. Persuade users to uninstall PPA packages before installing official
packages and also generation 2 PPA packages with sane versions like 5.10.x
2. Use versions
Alec Leamas dijo [Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 01:59:26AM +0200]:
> So, at least three possible paths:
>
> 1. Persuade users to uninstall PPA packages before installing official
> packages and also generation 2 PPA packages with sane versions like 5.10.x
>
> 2. Use versions like 9000.5.10, 9000.5.12. etc
Hi!
On Tue, 2024-07-02 at 03:32:53 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-07-02 at 00:54:13 +0100, Wookey wrote:
> > Quite. People are quite resistant to spoiling neat version numbers
> > with epochs, and no-one likes them, but they don't do any actual harm
> > (except sometimes break scripts
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 05:17:09PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I would use an epoch.
yes.
[...]
> Basically, you'd be burning a lot of social capital with upstream for no
> really good reason and you probably still wouldn't be able to convince
> them. I don't think it's worth it.
yes.
> I wo
Hi Jens,
On 02/07/2024 06:38, Jens Reyer wrote:
You may avoid the epoch if upstream is willing to provide a separate
package for about 2 years. (I did something similar to get rid of an
epoch in Ubuntu's wine packages a few years ago, replacing them with our
Debian packages):
package 9000.5
On 02/07/2024 02:31, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On July 2, 2024 12:26:49 AM UTC, Soren Stoutner wrote:
That adds some needed clarification. I agree that in that circumstance, adding
an epoch is the best way forward. It allows you to maintain the current
upstream program version number, while u
Am 2. Juli 2024 01:59:26 MESZ schrieb Alec Leamas :
>Soren et. al.,
>
>On 02/07/2024 01:31, Soren Stoutner wrote:
>> Alec,
>>
>>
>> If upstream wants to fix this problem, they could just make their next
>> release
>> version 9000, with the one after that either being 9001 or 9000.1.
>>
>> Or, p
(sorry, I replied thinking I've read the entire thread, I didn't notice
that there is a second thread broken off of this one)
--
WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 11:59:00PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
> > > After some thought, I tend to think that adding an epoch is the right
> > > thing
> > > here.
> > >
> > > The Policy [1] says:
> > > ---
> > > Epochs can help when the upstream version numbering scheme changes, but
> > > they
> >
Hi!
On Tue, 2024-07-02 at 00:54:13 +0100, Wookey wrote:
> On 2024-07-01 23:59 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
> > But this is not about third parties, it's about upstream which publishes PPA
> > packages. So far these are by far the most used Linux packages.
> >
> > I also hesitate to add an epoch, aft
On July 2, 2024 12:26:49 AM UTC, Soren Stoutner wrote:
>Alec,
>
>On Monday, July 1, 2024 5:19:37 PM MST Alec Leamas wrote:
>> For Debian users we backport opencpn which works well. However, the
>> Ubuntu backport process is, well, interesting (been there, done that).
>>
>> The PPA represents a
Alec,
On Monday, July 1, 2024 5:19:37 PM MST Alec Leamas wrote:
> For Debian users we backport opencpn which works well. However, the
> Ubuntu backport process is, well, interesting (been there, done that).
>
> The PPA represents a much better way to publish backports to current
> Ubuntu branches
HI again,
This becomes somewhat more complicated than it perhaps is.
On 02/07/2024 02:08, Soren Stoutner wrote:
Although I generally agree with your conclusions, using a PPA is the type of
end user task that involved them making modifications to the repositories on
their systems. I would assu
Alec Leamas writes:
> So, at least three possible paths:
> 1. Persuade users to uninstall PPA packages before installing official
> packages and also generation 2 PPA packages with sane versions like
> 5.10.x
> 2. Use versions like 9000.5.10, 9000.5.12. etc.
> 3. Use an epoch.
> Of these I wo
Alec,
Is upstream planning to maintain their PPA after the packages are released into
Debian?
Or, will it be more like Gentoo, OpenSUSE, or Mageia, where the OpenCPN website
simply links to the official packages?
https://opencpn.org/OpenCPN/info/downloadopencpn.html[1]
On Monday, July 1, 202
Alec,
On Monday, July 1, 2024 4:59:26 PM MST Alec Leamas wrote:
> 1. Persuade users to uninstall PPA packages before installing official
> packages and also generation 2 PPA packages with sane versions like 5.10.x
[...]
> Of these I would say that 1. is a **very** hard sell upstream. Users are
>
Soren,
On 02/07/2024 01:41, Soren Stoutner wrote:
Alec,
On Monday, July 1, 2024 4:25:59 PM MST Alec Leamas wrote:
On 02/07/2024 01:19, Alec Leamas wrote:
Let's drop this subthread, keeping eyes on the ball: what is a sane
version?
Looking at this from another point of view: is there any sit
Soren et. al.,
On 02/07/2024 01:31, Soren Stoutner wrote:
Alec,
If upstream wants to fix this problem, they could just make their next release
version 9000, with the one after that either being 9001 or 9000.1.
Or, possibly, they could encourage everyone to uninstall the PPA package
before ins
On 2024-07-01 23:59 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
> But this is not about third parties, it's about upstream which publishes PPA
> packages. So far these are by far the most used Linux packages.
>
> I also hesitate to add an epoch, after all they are basically considered
> evil. But if we should not
Alec,
On Monday, July 1, 2024 4:25:59 PM MST Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 02/07/2024 01:19, Alec Leamas wrote:
> > Let's drop this subthread, keeping eyes on the ball: what is a sane
> > version?
>
> Looking at this from another point of view: is there any situation where
> an epoch is appropriate?
>
On July 1, 2024 11:25:59 PM UTC, Alec Leamas wrote:
>On 02/07/2024 01:19, Alec Leamas wrote:
>
>> Let's drop this subthread, keeping eyes on the ball: what is a sane version?
>
>Looking at this from another point of view: is there any situation where an
>epoch is appropriate?
Yes. I don't th
Alec,
On Monday, July 1, 2024 4:19:22 PM MST Alec Leamas wrote:
> Hi again
>
> On 02/07/2024 01:13, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Monday, July 1, 2024 7:07:16 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote:
> >> On 02/07/2024 00:54, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 1, 2024 6:46:06 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote:
On 02/07/2024 01:19, Alec Leamas wrote:
Let's drop this subthread, keeping eyes on the ball: what is a sane
version?
Looking at this from another point of view: is there any situation where
an epoch is appropriate?
--alec
Hi again
On 02/07/2024 01:13, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, July 1, 2024 7:07:16 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote:
On 02/07/2024 00:54, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, July 1, 2024 6:46:06 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote:
If you switch hats for a moment: have you any advice for upstream in
this situat
On Monday, July 1, 2024 7:07:16 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 02/07/2024 00:54, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Monday, July 1, 2024 6:46:06 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote:
> >> If you switch hats for a moment: have you any advice for upstream in
> >> this situation?
> >
> > 8763.5.10
>
> Yes, I have ha
On 02/07/2024 00:54, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, July 1, 2024 6:46:06 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote:
If you switch hats for a moment: have you any advice for upstream in
this situation?
8763.5.10
Yes, I have had a similar idea using 1 instead of 8763 to make it
stand out less. In m
On Monday, July 1, 2024 6:46:06 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 02/07/2024 00:31, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> HI again
>
> > On July 1, 2024 10:18:07 PM UTC, Alec Leamas
wrote:
> >> But here the situation is that upstream do care and wants to fix it. But
> >> they need our help (an epoch) to acco
On 02/07/2024 00:31, Scott Kitterman wrote:
HI again
On July 1, 2024 10:18:07 PM UTC, Alec Leamas wrote:
But here the situation is that upstream do care and wants to fix it. But they
need our help (an epoch) to accomplish this to handle the legacy.
We could be helpful, or not. Why not giv
On July 1, 2024 10:18:07 PM UTC, Alec Leamas wrote:
>On 02/07/2024 00:10, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>Hi Scott,
>
>> Upstream can change the versioning however they want. They are upstream. If
>> they don't care to fix it, then I think we assume they are fine with it and
>> leave it as is.
>
>
On 02/07/2024 00:10, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Hi Scott,
Upstream can change the versioning however they want. They are upstream. If
they don't care to fix it, then I think we assume they are fine with it and
leave it as is.
But here the situation is that upstream do care and wants to fix it.
On Monday, July 1, 2024 5:59:00 PM EDT Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 01/07/2024 21:51, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
>
> Hi Andrey.
>
> Thanks for input.
>
> > On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 09:46:11PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
> >> After some thought, I tend to think that adding an epoch is the right
> >> thin
On 01/07/2024 21:51, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
Hi Andrey.
Thanks for input.
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 09:46:11PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
After some thought, I tend to think that adding an epoch is the right thing
here.
The Policy [1] says:
---
Epochs can help when the upstream version num
On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 09:46:11PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 01/07/2024 20:48, Alec Leamas wrote:
> > Dear list,
> >
> > Still working with the opencpn package. Now trying to normalize the
> > Ubuntu PPA builds so they can are based on the same debian/ directory
> > and tools as the existing
On 01/07/2024 20:48, Alec Leamas wrote:
Dear list,
Still working with the opencpn package. Now trying to normalize the
Ubuntu PPA builds so they can are based on the same debian/ directory
and tools as the existing Debian opencpn package.
opencpn is currently in a beta phase targeting a 5.10
Dear list,
Still working with the opencpn package. Now trying to normalize the
Ubuntu PPA builds so they can are based on the same debian/ directory
and tools as the existing Debian opencpn package.
opencpn is currently in a beta phase targeting a 5.10.1 release. The
beta versions are like "
43 matches
Mail list logo
