On 05/05/2016 19:07, Christian Kastner wrote: > On 2016-05-05 17:16, Giulio Paci wrote: >>> One thing I'm not quite sure I follow yet is the change in the version >>> numbering scheme, both upstream and in the package. This is how it looks >>> to me: >>> >>> 1. Upstream re-used revision r1668 and added a -r3 suffix >>> -> "r1668" trades a bit of revision semantic for version semantic >>> >>> 2. Hence your switch to version semantic in d/changelog >>> >>> Is my interpretation correct? >> >> You are right. The change is due to the fact that they relied on svn >> revisions for releases in the past. Now they have switched to another >> repository (probably still svn), >> and I understand that they are around revision 70 on the new one. >> >> My understanding is that they have private versions of intermediate packages >> that they did not publish. >> >> I have not talked with upstream about this anyway. > > I'd do that when you get the chance, just to clarify what release plans > they have. Some upstreams may even benefit from a bit of guidance, eg: > > https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide#Releases_and_Versions
Thank you for this pointer. I will probably do in future, if I will see further development happening. Unfortunately this software, as many other developed by students, is very important in its field, but lacks further development once the student is graduated. So I cannot foresee any future releases, unless I (or others) propose further changes and these are accepted. > In this particular case, I'd actually suggest that you stick to your > previous approach, and just modify it slightly: > > g2p-r1668.tar.gz => 0+r1668 > g2p-r1668-r3.tar.gz => 0+r1668.r3 (or even just keep -r3!) I decided to follow the suggestion from https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/first.en.html#idp39551808 : "You should choose the upstream version to consist only of alphanumerics (0-9A-Za-z), plus (+), tildes (~), and periods (.). It must start with a digit (0-9)." > The solution above retains the largest flexibility in the face of > the current ambiguity. For example, if upstream were to release a version > '0.0.1', your new solution would no longer work: > > $ dpkg --compare-versions '0.0.r1668.3-1' lt '0.0.1-1' || echo "oops!" > oops! You are right. I am still wondering how it happened that I changed the version scheme... Probably the error came from the watch file... Anyway it should be fixed now. > You can achieve the aforementioned modification by chaining patterns in > uversionmangle using a semicolon. Based on your previous version: > > -opts="uversionmangle=s/^(.*)$/0+$1/" > +opts="uversionmangle=s/^(.*)$/0+$1/; s/-r(\d+)/.r$1/" > > $ uscan --report-status | grep -A4 'newest first' > uscan info: Found the following matching hrefs on the web page (newest > first): > g2p-r1668-r3.tar.gz (0+r1668.r3) index=0+r1668.r3-1 > g2p-r1668.tar.gz (0+r1668) index=0+r1668-1 > g2p-r103.tar.gz (0+r103) index=0+r103-1 > g2p-r96.tar.gz (0+r96) index=0+r96-1 > > On a side note: I believe you can simplify the version matching pattern > in your watch file. You currently match for many possible suffixes, but > upstream apparently only uses .tar.gz. I simplified suffix matches. Bests, Giulio
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
