Opened 15 years ago
Closed 15 years ago
#38 closed defect (fixed)
debian packages for CVS based projects and (HEAD) versions
| Reported by: | Bryan Gartner | Owned by: | Bruno Cornec |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | major | Milestone: | 0.9.5 |
| Component: | pb | Version: | 0.9.4 |
| Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
Currently, when a revision is not specified for a CVS based project, PB attempts to use cvs-1 as a versioning string. This is a problem for debian packaging guidelines and the typical tools used resulting is this type of error:
dh_builddeb -v
dpkg-deb --build debian/linuxcoe-sd-docs ..
dpkg-deb - error: (upstream) version (`cvs') doesn't contain any digits dpkg-deb: 1 errors in control file dh_builddeb: command returned error code 512 make: * [binary-arch] Error 1 dpkg-buildpackage: failure: fakeroot debian/rules binary gave error exit status 2
I'd suggest we modify this approach to use one similar to the svn behaviour of using a date stamp format (YYYYMMDD), and this also matches what Debian Policy states:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#s3.2.1
Change History (3)
comment:1 by , 15 years ago
| Owner: | set to |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → assigned |
comment:2 by , 15 years ago
Hello Bryan,
Replying to bryang:
Currently, when a revision is not specified for a CVS based project, PB attempts to use cvs-1 as a versioning string.
This is already fixed in fact in the version in svn :-) Ididn't remember I already made the fix, but for .debs file only through the Changelog module.
I'd suggest we modify this approach to use one similar to the svn behaviour of using a date stamp format (YYYYMMDD), and this also matches what Debian Policy states:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#s3.2.1
In your case, it should create a 2008XXYYcvs version. Is it ok for you and coul you check this is indeed working in your env ?
comment:3 by , 15 years ago
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | assigned → closed |
Closing with worksforme. Feel free to reopen if that's not tha case for you.
This was a known (but undocumented) bug. This is also an area where Debian is much less permissive than RPM distros. This is true also for SVN.
This causes IMHO sort of an issue to systimatecally generate a new development package each time. May pollute rapidly build env, ftp servers. So doing that would probably involve provided a clean up function for the various env as well.
Also should we only do that for debian packages, or for all packages ? If my svn tree is named upstream devel, am I allowed to packae it adding another date string to it ?
Technically it's easy to do (Package CMS.pm line 104) if you want to have a look. I'm more concerned by the implications and their acceptance, at least on my side ;-)