Non-perpetuation of the llvm-toolchain epoch

[Sylvestre Ledru]

Le 12/01/2018 à 15:56, Guillem Jover a écrit :
> Hi!
>
> Sorry, have not found the time up to now. :(
no worries :)
>
> On Sat, 2018-01-06 at 12:53:04 +0100, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>> Le 03/01/2018 à 20:30, Sylvestre Ledru a écrit :
>>> Le 09/08/2017 à 00:11, Guillem Jover a écrit :
>>>>> I will fix that for 7
>>>> Thanks and sure, versions are patient. :)
>>> So, llvm branched a few minutes ago and I am ready to do this change.
>>>
>>> But I would need expert check on that.
>>>
>>> So, currently, I would have
>>>
>>> llvm-toolchain-snapshot (1:7.0~svn321385-2) unstable; urgency=medium
>>>
>>> Instead, should I just do the following:
>>>
>>> llvm-toolchain-snapshot (7~svn321385-2) unstable; urgency=medium
>>>
>>> Will be enough from the 6.0 => 7 upgrade?
>>>
>>>
>>> Should I do the same with 6.0 before I upload it into NEW?
>> I uploaded 6.0 in NEW!
>> For 7, I will give a try as mentionned above!
> I think I mentioned what could work in one of my original mails. :)
> To recap, reusing the llvm-toolchain-snapshot will not work, because
> the source version already contains an epoch. Your options would be to
> just create the llvm-toolchain-7 (or whatever name you will give to
> that once it moves to unstable from the get go) and avoid the epoch.

I would indeed like to preserve the -snapshot name as it is used a lot on

https://apt.llvm.org/

I would like to preserve the upgrades working without user having to do
anything.

> Or preserve the llvm-toolchain-snapshot name, use the epoch in the
> source version but not in the binary package versions
I wasn't aware it was possible.
How can you do that? By providing more arguments to dh calls?
>  which later on
> can also switch to use the non-epoched version in the llvm-toolchain-7
> package once that gets uploaded to unstable. The latter seems like
> unnecessary busy work, but perhaps you do have a reason for using the
> -snapshot suffixed name, dunno. :)

Indeed :)

Thanks for your time.

S