1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.DEVEL

  • Correct version and revision of upstream packaged Debian package

    From Tuukka Pasanen@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 20 09:30:01 2022
    This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
    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

    <html>
    <head>

    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
    </head>
    <body>
    <p>Hello,</p>
    <p>After reading couple times Debian Policy documentation packaging
    conventions and especially<span class="section-number"> '5.6.12.2.
    </span>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.</p>
    <p>Currently revision is for example: <span style="color: rgb(0,
    153, 0);">'10.6</span><span style="color: black;">.</span><span
    style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">7</span><span style="color:
    black;">+maria~buster' which upgrades </span><span
    style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">'10.6</span><span style="color:
    black;">.</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">7</span><span
    style="color: black;">+maria~bullseye' which is lexical orderly
    lower than </span><span style="color: black;">first one.</span><span
    style="color: black;"> To understand this bug report can be
    found here: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-28628">https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-28628</a> which
    contain more info about how apt works with current situation.<br>
    </span></p>
    <p><span style="color: black;"></span></p>
    <p><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;">Thing
    that like to ask should revision it be more like </span></span>'<span
    style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;"><span
    style="color: black;">+maria~deb11' or </span></span></span><span
    style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;"><span
    style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;">+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 . <br>
    </span></span></span></span></p>
    <p><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;"><span
    style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;">So I like
    to know is there any common or tasked knowledge about how
    this can be done correctly</span></span></span></span><span
    style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;"><span
    style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;"> which I'm
    no aware of</span></span></span></span><span style="color:
    black;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;"><span
    style="color: black;">? If someone can point out that I'm
    more than pleased to correct this thing.<br>
    </span></span></span></span></p>
    <p><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;"><span
    style="color: black;"><span style="color: black;">Sincerely,<br>
    Tuukka<br>
    </span></span></span></span></p>
    <p><span style="color: black;"></span></p>
    </body>
    </html>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timo =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=B6hling?=@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 20 10:00:01 2022
    Hi Tuukka,

    * Tuukka Pasanen <[email protected]> [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<N>. 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 1.4.9999999), 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 │
    ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ ╰────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQGzBAABCgAdFiEEJvtDgpxjkjCIVtam+C8H+466LVkFAmKHSdoACgkQ+C8H+466 LVm5cwwA7vfqi+odyfE3c3Neml+VVT14wUm6E7MQP9MRrzFeaHJOeXMZcjbpb5++ lxN0+0EDTmkXBRR9adclOtIz/RomjaH9G1EmfvNQ9hMhBcHtZGNBBm8jSjoJ9T6h ckuJLdXk/JR9n9T3uS5xLqycHZSyokv89EPeQ4azgtQAGBFvnJc78Cf46hVOXd89 +s+Nepty+dV1NcqIEpDJAMtTDJwD3mql83GAHZ/uMheeISuuduVgzFuU7894FGli u5W6g6NmOtXVNh7DcYNzuPSkrSZKpX+k7OZq9xf2u/uhJYQpbodaox2lOF86D2Cz q/nkIiZvVeHY/Sfl9fMqld0H2M5Fxjo8j8MO0QVzaXl
  • From Andrey Rahmatullin@21:1/5 to Jonas Smedegaard on Fri May 20 11:10:01 2022
    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

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQJhBAABCgBLFiEEolIP6gqGcKZh3YxVM2L3AxpJkuEFAmKHWPQtFIAAAAAAFQAP cGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3Jnd3JhckBkZWJpYW4ub3JnAAoJEDNi9wMaSZLh 6+QP/1vZYL4WtA73bRVJpH4tjx6Wcf+HDKqFPFiGeVWd5toNn4d0g+eY5n7omyXm JlmaDZKcjzyFFNSIY9o6ZriZxO5cka5ZpZ0ZXcm6WIf+8VxTNjtgGbXU2VDZdD4I +qPuYjIc+efmqauNEWl3e7h6xi94eSiWHG5lSMxlqgHCJpG4NAQKLD6DuI4plHmU 2AyF9Hz12MMIyS1SdhZAvxGWhXRL0+qjPIuohHFBsjWFRKkllm4tFP69phl/yOvN 3VzRuviBMYT1iVGRaPPxuSQiNy5GHY3INF4yfGDwyLpU3roDk/4pq0Bzluk6K3e7 KE5IOAa/TDNd+T+sG0aGouhw8I2lDQaEnF0SWTFUXzYbmrI5gcwacEHO9GhMxHNA 7wYOqUz4YI5ScsMBmXOr+h9zIHaHgJU4p1+ahxRoML/HWsWxpVg8Yq/kd7f8wydt brCFZ2OGGYe8r/yNWysZ/QMxhNaCiNbZilcqebzkgQrNrUj+4P11OFhX390XSe+0 DbkQ9m3e8OO+kabR17CNPmtKOtPKXn/uF0Cd9yoGW9UUcxQFE0grIZlukP32PWRR j6C6XAv5anC62fFUxidR/dDgwapm9cstvTEQTbo6MTLNWP96/TT5VabOSQ0u1DrW gD8/8j3XOMt22kIVFkQq9Oq/LpsrrQgcQXBKS/jxGB9qHL0g
    =fC0r
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jonas Smedegaard@21:1/5 to All on Fri May 20 11:00:01 2022
    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 --==============d72518958512622644=MIME-Version: 1.0
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    Content-Description: signature
    Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"; charset="us-ascii"

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEn+Ppw2aRpp/1PMaELHwxRsGgASEFAmKHVrUACgkQLHwxRsGg ASEIChAAmTyj3Yv6x7NTAMuHNjU+VYjvZ+jpZQlBvFypHNV1pyb2W1b7tX4DEnEd PfWCU2av8JLnnZOKSX+SAk/yYOWGa/8AV7MBKeK551J86MyoWvAtG9pf0VNaMnAE S0niO/4mVY5jnHf6RRyoPWlZlTxRSbKdNulm/Obr9NbSu5jF3y+sMFmVUNDWilBy kCGanllVKu1IFhJF0uWoCSBTtIlR/y//kcSlu5Xy2pc/6E0PyXZYGpOvgOgBpvMl p3QP0E9rrMbRrgkStXSlFX21JBynaZXcnha2rzXYNJZGxmSNXLkf/S7EGV0FDLFj JoVh9Ww8PXXgJjXhAaobY9AAj6Nh3KVzaM84jAH4h3s2sYgqhZmn0SGafAsWIGEf PU9HZW6qzNrjk8rH8NDSESCJGTauUottobXdHfj+C1Mr+zDPvgiDm796eZeD3gmB TQHU67f+egE7BUJFRkmtydJB9GeZx0jbvb3VyB+N4rzHkhyMBy281h51s2e9MAeu UALIWZe05v869vEo2
  • From Andrey Rahmatullin@21:1/5 to Tuukka Pasanen on Fri May 20 10:20:01 2022
    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

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQJhBAABCgBLFiEEolIP6gqGcKZh3YxVM2L3AxpJkuEFAmKHTPotFIAAAAAAFQAP cGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3Jnd3JhckBkZWJpYW4ub3JnAAoJEDNi9wMaSZLh eB4QAJ8+xraoFbxXHhV1g/yN8S0QMRRWCuKNq4kg1qYSCuKXd+ijWR9Z/Tq3FZqJ fCkdzHK5jqgqrURH3kQIPymfWEsAlgm7aOSEWRPVodpGVhZ4vP7yAee8d1YC6VeE AkismijIBidE2ngGVFvl5aCxM9chIL74FSapEJoTJ59G1B8q4p7/m7nTLwA71sgG KuywFppdKVfKrOHxfFQ0roDXDtTMcoRdZPSDf2yh9hbZ0HeWB8DgmZg4SgL9/6e9 /wJoSVwccSKXBDfJebLyXpH9cQUJgmh6RTKKlvgxTKsOhZqZRgXSbkVCJhqXqpBA b0x0NJQEjtK7HGGCL1m/jqwJM5/ha0WN0fj7wE1W346ne82O2jnf1nv8lxEvDti3 ixrNKmVAfIs+EMbzuQOkNxB+sgbkJ5Fxc24BdYDidSA8LgDOqx5Q4a5jZLOn/zDT qZ7He9r+NEyWWb/9Heu7Clow91xMb2e2oT+GuG/nmh5bEdchp4X67CU7lvf7/fhi Gj8X65WyEDBquqO+Awmh6mRxANj/PtK0aRwdTK82RsD3X745KFjJW37BYpe5qRTJ +XbwTsmx0LWgEObR3oX5063MxgqeYES0MkUOn69nlTM2lXbqWMnkFJ2VybsT6a1t 6PmXTx10Dlh+wIPdNlIztRn7yGUSsWkEXpRuzr2te+UPt2uz
    =2LWU
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)