search

Florin-Popescu / avarice-unofficial

AVaRICE with support for newer devices
GNU General Public License v2.0
13 stars 9 forks source link

New name or bump major #7

Closed majioa closed 3 years ago

majioa commented 3 years ago

Hello,

i saw you have forken avarice from official repo, and maintain this new repo. As the packager of altlinux i have some troubles in current versioning, since you've downgrade major digit with keeping name of the project. To solve the trouble I propose 2 ways:

  1. Bump major digit to 3, to differ from the main repo.
  2. rename the project to for example "novel-avarice/newavarice/avaricee"
Florin-Popescu commented 3 years ago

Hello,

Actually I've just come across this myself where Ubuntu was trying to auto update my packaged deb with the one in their repos. Are you having trouble with the pre-packaged .deb files or with the GitHub Release numbering in this fork?

I've bumped the debian_revision part of the versioning which is used to generate .deb packages with latest commit 98e9f9e: 2.14-1 to 2.14-2, which fixed the package conflict for me on Ubuntu, but I have not yet updated the latest packages for it. Is this what you're looking for?

What are you trying to achieve? Have the original avarice in your packages, this one, or both? Should this one simply override the official one (i.e. by a version bump) or coexist with it?

majioa commented 3 years ago

We have specific packaging system ourselves, like deb, but on RPM basis, with apt.

I've meant of tag you are using in the repo. i.e. 1.x, but original are 2.x, so our automated scripts treats it as version degradation. And we are not using the debian_revision since we are non debian-like linux distributor.

Florin-Popescu commented 3 years ago

Would like to keep the versioning similar to upstream, to be obvious which upstream version this fork tracks. So I wouldn't like to bump major version. Is something small like bumping the suffix for the tags enough for you? I am thinking of something like 2.14-2, 2.14-3 etc... because currently in ubuntu the package available via apt is 2.14-1.

I found that the current official version in altlinux seems to be 2.13-alt1. Is this correct? In this case, will a tag like described above be seen correctly as a bump?

If this won't work for you, what is the exact version string of the current package in your packaging system, and what is the syntax you use for comparisons?

majioa commented 3 years ago

It is ok to keep the upstream versioning, but how about to the current versioning in the fork? Upstream last version is 2.14, but your one is 1.x, it is strange for me, if you plan to use in your versions, patch (third) number. i.e. 2.14.1, 2.14.2, 2.14.2.1 (for minor patch) etc. it will be ok.

I found that the current official version in altlinux seems to be 2.13-alt1

Yes it is correct. If you do 2.14.1, 2.14.1.1 etx versioning, I can do bumps.

Florin-Popescu commented 3 years ago

Renamed the tags like discussed.

majioa commented 3 years ago

@Florin-Popescu Sorry for disturn again, have you a principle to numerate in format x.y-z , and not x.y.z ?

Florin-Popescu commented 3 years ago

Well I like to follow the debian versioning scheme since I use Ubuntu. In that way it matches the format of the version which comes from my distro's packages and it looks like the generally accepted way as far as I can tell. I would like to stick to this.