[Pkg-bazaar-maint] builddeb questions

[James Westby]

Hi Jelmer,

thanks for the comments.

On (06/07/07 00:20), Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-06-30 at 19:13 +0100, James Westby wrote:
> > The first is tagging, some of the code needs to be identify certain
> > revisions, so far I have only needed to identify pure upstream versions,
> > and so I used a tag of
> > 
> >   upstream-<version>
> > 
> > for those. Does that look right, or should it just be '<version>'?
> Personally, I prefer upstream-<version> as well.

Just to clarify I was using literally 'upstream', but perhaps the
package name would be better. It would be good if this would
work well when upstream is in bzr. However as upstream could use
any tagging scheme it might be best to add a layer of indirection,
or use our own tagging scheme, or provide a way to specify the
upstream tagging scheme.

> I'm not quite sure I understand the problem here. upstream-<version>
> would match the current .orig tarball, no? In the same way, a tag coul;d
> be set for the debian/ubuntu version. E.g. you could have bzr-svn-0.3.2
> set by upstream for the upstream 0.3.2 release and have a tag
> bzr-svn-0.3.2-1 for debian and bzr-svn-0.3.2-1ubuntu0 for ubuntu.
> 
> I guess I'm missing something here, but I'm not sure what exactly :-)

Yes,

that would probably work fine.

However as I was using literally 'upstream-' as the tag prefix I wasn't
sure what to prefix upload tags with.

Also I was thinking about how to deal with the case where the same
version number is used for uploads to two different distributions. It
seems like that wont be a problem for upload to Debian/Ubuntu, but
perhaps it might happen with uploads to
unstable/testing-proposed-updates or similar. I am not sure of the
policies in play here.

Thanks,

James

-- 
  James Westby   --    GPG Key ID: B577FE13    --     http://jameswestby.net/
  seccure key - (3+)k7|M*edCX/.A:n*N!>|&7U.L#9E)Tu)T0>AM - secp256r1/nistp256