Le mercredi 14 août 2024, 13:42:29 UTC Santiago Ruano Rincón a écrit : > El 12/08/24 a las 00:15, Bastien Roucariès escribió: > > Le lundi 12 août 2024, 00:04:15 UTC Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit : > > > > salsa. Some user used +deb12u1~1 > > > > but it is not safe against +deb12u1~debu11u1 upgrade for instance. So a > > > > suffix > > > > like ~pre should be used, and should be documented > > > > > > Maybe we could set aside "~~~" for such uses. ~pre is not going to be > > > foolproof. > > You mean ~+~pre ? because +deb12u1~~~ is before +deb12u1~debu11u1 and we > > want to upgrade to deb12u1~debu11u1 to deb12u1~+~pre1 to +deb12u1 > > ~+~pre reads like too much. I would prefer something simpler.
~+~ is safe and look like a smiley throwed upon (memotechnic) Note the at the contrary +~+ will be perfect for user recompiled package So they are some sense on it. > > The corner(*) case you are describing is: there is a preview package > available via salsa ci/aptly job or whatever; we want a bullseye user to > avoid upgrading to that preview package, while still being able to > upgrade to the actual bookworm package. Please, tell me if that doesn't > match your thoughts. > > The broader question is how we *should* version an in-development > package. Myself, I tend to avoid using the final version in the VCS > until I release, to avoid creating any confusion for anyone looking at > the repo (or if I make the build artifacts available via aptly). So I > use gbp dch -S that creates a snapshot debian/changelog with a suffix > ~N.gbpCOMMIT_ID, but that is not safe for the corner case you describe. > > (*) and this is a very corner case. We are talking about PPA-like > repositories that only informed users would enable. But let's try to be > in the safest possible place anyway. > > > > I am *very* happy that ~deb sorts later than ~bpo, as that updates a > > > backport to a stable / oldstable / oldoldstable update. > > > > > But that was sheer luck. This is not true for ~pre, but would work for > > > ~~pre or ~~~~whatever... > > > > Yes sheer luck do +~+pre will do the trik and be safe against +~ck of > > javascript > > ~+N... (where N is [0...)) would do the trick? I prefer here be on the safe side >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
