[Pkg-openmpi-maintainers] [Pkg-openmpi-commits] r33 - in /openmpi/trunk/debian: changelog patches/00list patches/50fix_kfreebsd_build.dpatch

[Manuel Prinz]

Am Mittwoch, den 25.07.2007, 13:49 +0000 schrieb Dirk Eddelbuettel:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 01:46:18PM -0000, hauro-guest at users.alioth.debian.org wrote:
> > +openmpi (1.2.3-2) unstable; urgency=low
> 
> How about if we call it 1.2.3-1.YYYYMMDD while we are working on it,
> and then replace that with 1.2.3-2 once we are reading to upload it?
> Otherwise it gets hard with local repositories that do not like
> mulitple versions with the same name.
> 
> Just a thought. Other suggestions more than welcome. Anybody know what
> the other svn-based projects do?

I personally really enjoy the (not so new anymore) feature of dpkg to
use "~" in my local repositories, such as "foo-1.2.3-4~local1". ("local"
meets the repository name, I use several.) The advantage is that it
allows really smooth upgrading[1]. I'd suggest "openmpi-1.2.3-1~YYYMMDD"
or simply an increasing number[2]. One just has to strip the "~*" part. 

  $dpkg --compare-versions foo-1.2-1 gt foo-1.2-1.1 && echo yes
  $dpkg --compare-versions foo-1.2-2 gt foo-1.2-1.1 && echo yes
  yes
  $dpkg --compare-versions foo-1.2-1 gt foo-1.2-1~5 && echo yes
  yes

The "-y~x" notation shows that you're working *on* version y, "-y.x"
shows that you work *towards* version "y+1". So it's just the point of
view that makes the difference, as I see it. Preferences, anyone?

Just my to cents. I really like the idea, if that wasn't clear. ;)

Best regards,
Manuel
-- 
 1. There might be issues when you move backwards in time. But you then
might have bigger problems than that, anyway.
 2. I don't care much about when the package build and you have to keep
build date and version in sync, otherwise it's useless.