| 1 |
В Втр, 03/08/2010 в 22:17 +0300, Petteri Räty пишет: |
| 2 |
> On 08/03/2010 03:03 PM, Peter Volkov wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Bug 330667 requests _p or |
| 4 |
> > _pre. I feel that _p|_pre versions should be left for VCS (read |
| 5 |
> > development) versions of the package, while during backports we have the |
| 6 |
> > best version with all important upstream+gentoo fixes available to the |
| 7 |
> > moment and I'd better avoid to call it development. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> If you read the bug you will see that our python has essentially been |
| 10 |
> development versions so _p is in line with what you say above. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Quotation from the bug: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
"gentoo's 3.1.2 is _not_ 3.1.2, it's a pre of 3.1.3." |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Not taking into consideration that it is possible to name _p 3.1.2 I |
| 17 |
would like to point that patches are from _stable_ branch as thus all |
| 18 |
users want them. This is not development version. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> > If we decide to go with _p or _pre could we agree on answers for the |
| 21 |
> > following questions: |
| 22 |
> > - Does single patch from upstream's VCS justify _p$(date|rev) version? |
| 23 |
> > What if this is _the only_ patch in the upstream's VCS? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> No if the patch is small and can be reasonably understood. If the patch |
| 26 |
> for example switches the used build system and I would think _p is |
| 27 |
> called for. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> > - Now what about two patches? Three? N? When does few patches became |
| 30 |
> > pile? |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> You should ask upstream to make a release when they start to pile up. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Yup, but since "patchset being pile" is a clause to change version, we |
| 35 |
should formally define what is a pile. 20kb unpacked? 10 patches? Until |
| 36 |
this is done such decision is on maintainer's discretion, like |
| 37 |
maintainer told in comment #1. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> > - What if I drop single patch from the upstream's patchset for stable |
| 40 |
> > branch, should we drop _pre _p version and add -rN? |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> _p reflects upstream situation so dropping a patch from that is a Gentoo |
| 43 |
> modification there so it would be _p12323-r1. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Rigorously speaking even dropping one patch makes it not to be _p12323 |
| 46 |
any more and we should version it somehow differently. How? Since ebuild |
| 47 |
is based on upstream's stable tarbal obvious solution is to use the |
| 48 |
tarbal's version. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> > - What if there are two dependent patches, and first one fixes |
| 51 |
> > indentation? Should we spend time on backporting second patch (time |
| 52 |
> > consuming and error prone process) or use both and live closer to |
| 53 |
> > upstream? |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> I would leave this up to the maintainer. Depends on how much time |
| 56 |
> backporting takes. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
After reading your answers I don't understand why the bug is still |
| 59 |
opened and what it is about. Arfrever told that he fells that it's up to |
| 60 |
him how to version packages. And I agree with him in this exact case. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
-- |
| 63 |
Peter. |
Archives