upstream had modified their site, so I complained:
https://git.frama-c.com/pub/frama-c/-/issues/2622
and upstream pretty quickly provided a new page ; except that I don't
get how from upstream 25.0-Manganese we got a Debian version 20220511- manganese-1.3 !
With d/watch being:
version=4
https://frama-c.com/html/direct-source-distributions.html .*/frama-c- ([0-9]{2}\.[0-9]-[a-zA-Z]+)\.tar\.gz
then uscan -v lists the upstream versions in a reasonable order.
What can we do to improve things?
Le 22/07/2022 à 20:19, julien.puydt@gmail.com a écrit :
upstream had modified their site, so I complained:
https://git.frama-c.com/pub/frama-c/-/issues/2622
and upstream pretty quickly provided a new page ; except that I don't
get how from upstream 25.0-Manganese we got a Debian version 20220511-
manganese-1.3 !
With d/watch being:
version=4
https://frama-c.com/html/direct-source-distributions.html .*/frama-c-
([0-9]{2}\.[0-9]-[a-zA-Z]+)\.tar\.gz
then uscan -v lists the upstream versions in a reasonable order.
What can we do to improve things?
I was also suprised when I looked at frama-c'v versioning.
I don't know why date-based versions were chosen.
If I were in charge, I would add an epoch et start using upstream
version numbers.
Cheers,
--
Stéphane
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 296 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 34:34:18 |
Calls: | 6,648 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 12,193 |
Messages: | 5,328,826 |