[3dprinter-general] A Sponsor for Printrun

[Bas Wijnen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 08:29:18PM +0100, Rock Storm wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 21:33 +0000, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > A version of the form YYYMMDD sorts properly, so you can simply use
> > it without "0~".  It is higher than the last released version (that
> > people may have installed; if in doubt, only versions in Debian
> > count), so no need to add an epoch either.
> 
> On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 22:37 +0100, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
> > Wouldn't 20150310 be greater than 0.0.x? So why don't you just leave
> > the epoch and 0~ ?
> 
> I agree with you both, no need to change the epoch, but shouldn’t I
> keep the “0~”? My idea was to upload current latest version and try to
> convince upstream to adopt the versioning format of 1.2.3 for future
> releases, hence the “0~” to anticipate this transition. I’d rather use
> the versioning format 1.2.3 over the YYYYMMDD because it gives much
> more information about the kind of upgrade going on, whether it is a
> mayor release or just some minor adjustments. Would it be too much to
> ask upstream? Is it very improbable that they would agree to do such
> thing? Or maybe it is better to simply stick to what there is right now
> and forget about anticipations?

That reasoning is fine.  It is a reasonable request, but it is also reasonable
if upstream does not want to do it.  So I would ask them, and until you hear
from them you can keep 0~.  If they don't want to do it, you can drop that and
use their versions.  If they agree, you can also use their version of course.

> I was hoping to upload the package despite of these two warnings, after
> all they are both “just” pedantic warnings. I think it is good and
> necessary that lintian warns about them so I believe I should stick to
> option 1 in both cases: trying to convince upstream to elaborate a
> proper changelog for future releases. However, talking upstream into
> signing the tarballs seems highly unlikely to me.

Sounds good to me.

> I asked this matter to debian-legal [3] and I conclude that upstream
> not delivering a changelog file is unfortunate but does not violate the
> GPL v3. Therefore the package is acceptable despite the lintian warning
> although it would be nice to ask upstream to elaborate a changelog.

That's good, that makes things easier.

By the way, do you want to add your packaging to our Alioth repository?  Do you
need a login for that?

Thanks,
Bas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=4VvM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----