Currently revision is for example: '10.6.7+maria~buster' whichYour understanding is a bit oversimplified, and that is the source
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 .
For the avoidance of doubt, I meant using ~ as a separator.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
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.
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'.
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.You indeed shouldn't put codenames into versions as codenames don't sort correctly. You should put release version numbers, like official stable
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.No, the only thing ~ means is "a tilde sorts before anything, even the end
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
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 339 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 00:19:34 |
Calls: | 7,466 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 12,691 |
Messages: | 5,627,864 |