Guillermo Ballester Valor wrote:
Hello, Hola Guillermo
I've build new RPM packages for amsn, cvs version. They are called 'amsn_cvs' and have some nice and new features with respect the relased 'amsn 0.94'. Note that it is a development version. To install 'amsn_cvs' RPMs you need uninstall 'amsn' because of some conflicts.
If both packages conflict anyway, why do you call it "amsn_cvs" and not just "amsn" ? IMHO the best name/version scheme would be amsn-0.94_20051123-1... That way it would supersede amsn-0.94 and yet, when a new release comes out (either 0.94.1 or 0.95), the release version will supersede the CVS snapshot again. amsn-0.94 amsn-0.94_20051123 => upgrade amsn-0.94_20051205 => upgrade amsn-0.94.1 => upgrade or amsn-0.95 => upgrade as well It's a similar trick than how to handle "rc" (release candidate), "alpha" or "beta" versions, where you'd use a _0.1 (beta1), _0.2 (beta2) suffix: amsn-0.95_0.1 => 0.95 beta1 amsn-0.95_0.2 => 0.95 beta2 amsn-0.95_1.0 => 0.95 release Because if you use "rc1" or "beta1" in the version tag, it won't upgrade properly: amsn-0.95beta1 amsn-0.95beta2 => will upgrade, ok amsn-0.95 ======> won't upgrade (!) On a sidenote, could you also build and include amsn's systray plugin ? I've seen 2 or 3 people asking for amsn packages that include that. Would be nice, especially as an addon RPM (e.g. amsn-systray) ;) (and some work as well, the amsn source code is an awful mess) (and maybe we should take this thread to the opensuse-packaging list, that's why I'm cross-posting ;)) cheers -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ <pascal.bleser@skynet.be> <guru@unixtech.be> _\_v FOSDEM 2006 -- 25+26 February 2006 in Brussels
Hello Pascal, El Miércoles, 23 de Noviembre de 2005 17:44, Pascal Bleser escribió:
Guillermo Ballester Valor wrote:
Hello,
Hola Guillermo
I've build new RPM packages for amsn, cvs version. They are called 'amsn_cvs' and have some nice and new features with respect the relased 'amsn 0.94'. Note that it is a development version. To install 'amsn_cvs' RPMs you need uninstall 'amsn' because of some conflicts.
If both packages conflict anyway, why do you call it "amsn_cvs" and not just "amsn" ?
Because one is considered something as 'stable' and the other is 'in development'. The scheme you proposed is the first I intended. Then I was no sure about to release a cvs version with the same name that the normal release. Some people doesn't like to have potential unstable packages. In amsn source (and in the initial window), it is also named as amsn 0.95 20051107. That is the reason of '0.95'. I also have a similar problem with gcc-4.1 compiler. I've backported the compiler in 10.1 to 9.3 and 10.0, with suffix '_41' as complementary to factory gcc compiler. The name-version in suse specs is 'gcc-4.1.0_20051104', mine is 'gcc_41-4.1.0_20051104' . Version could be 4.0_20051104 so it will upgrade when released gcc-4.1.0, but the used snapshot is in 4.1 branch. Any sugestion about how to name it?
IMHO the best name/version scheme would be amsn-0.94_20051123-1...
That way it would supersede amsn-0.94 and yet, when a new release comes out (either 0.94.1 or 0.95), the release version will supersede the CVS snapshot again.
amsn-0.94 amsn-0.94_20051123 => upgrade amsn-0.94_20051205 => upgrade amsn-0.94.1 => upgrade or amsn-0.95 => upgrade as well
It's a similar trick than how to handle "rc" (release candidate), "alpha" or "beta" versions, where you'd use a _0.1 (beta1), _0.2 (beta2) suffix: amsn-0.95_0.1 => 0.95 beta1 amsn-0.95_0.2 => 0.95 beta2 amsn-0.95_1.0 => 0.95 release
Because if you use "rc1" or "beta1" in the version tag, it won't upgrade properly: amsn-0.95beta1 amsn-0.95beta2 => will upgrade, ok amsn-0.95 ======> won't upgrade (!)
On a sidenote, could you also build and include amsn's systray plugin ? I've seen 2 or 3 people asking for amsn packages that include that. Would be nice, especially as an addon RPM (e.g. amsn-systray) ;) (and some work as well, the amsn source code is an awful mess)
There is a c compiled libtray.so in 'util/linux/traydock' directory. Do you mean that or other separate plugin?
(and maybe we should take this thread to the opensuse-packaging list, that's why I'm cross-posting ;))
Of course ;) Cheers, Guillermo -- Guillermo Ballester Valor gbv@oxixares.com Ogijares, Granada SPAIN Public GPG KEY http://www.oxixares.com/~gbv/pubgpg.html #################################################### See World Weather Navigator at http://www.ogimet.com ####################################################
Hello Pascal,
El Miércoles, 23 de Noviembre de 2005 17:44, Pascal Bleser escribió:
Guillermo Ballester Valor wrote:
Hello,
Hola Guillermo
I've build new RPM packages for amsn, cvs version. They are called 'amsn_cvs' and have some nice and new features with respect the relased 'amsn 0.94'. Note that it is a development version. To install 'amsn_cvs' RPMs you need uninstall 'amsn' because of some conflicts.
If both packages conflict anyway, why do you call it "amsn_cvs" and not just "amsn" ? I agree with pascal. Since the cvs package can not be installed in parrallel with the stable amsn, then there is no reason to use a different naming scheme. Normaly you change names when, for example, you build a package that can be installed "in parallel" with an existing one in your system( because you do not want or just can not upgrate it ). That can be the case of gcc
Hi: El Miércoles, 23 de Noviembre de 2005 18:50, Guillermo Ballester Valor escribió: packages, for instance: then you build the second gcc vesion with a different name and install prefix, in order to install in parallel, and call this package gcc410(-%{version}). cheers saludos jorge
Because one is considered something as 'stable' and the other is 'in development'.
The scheme you proposed is the first I intended. Then I was no sure about to release a cvs version with the same name that the normal release. Some people doesn't like to have potential unstable packages.
In amsn source (and in the initial window), it is also named as amsn 0.95 20051107. That is the reason of '0.95'.
I also have a similar problem with gcc-4.1 compiler. I've backported the compiler in 10.1 to 9.3 and 10.0, with suffix '_41' as complementary to factory gcc compiler. The name-version in suse specs is 'gcc-4.1.0_20051104', mine is 'gcc_41-4.1.0_20051104' . Version could be 4.0_20051104 so it will upgrade when released gcc-4.1.0, but the used snapshot is in 4.1 branch. Any sugestion about how to name it?
IMHO the best name/version scheme would be amsn-0.94_20051123-1...
That way it would supersede amsn-0.94 and yet, when a new release comes out (either 0.94.1 or 0.95), the release version will supersede the CVS snapshot again.
amsn-0.94 amsn-0.94_20051123 => upgrade amsn-0.94_20051205 => upgrade amsn-0.94.1 => upgrade or amsn-0.95 => upgrade as well
It's a similar trick than how to handle "rc" (release candidate), "alpha" or "beta" versions, where you'd use a _0.1 (beta1), _0.2 (beta2) suffix: amsn-0.95_0.1 => 0.95 beta1 amsn-0.95_0.2 => 0.95 beta2 amsn-0.95_1.0 => 0.95 release
Because if you use "rc1" or "beta1" in the version tag, it won't upgrade properly: amsn-0.95beta1 amsn-0.95beta2 => will upgrade, ok amsn-0.95 ======> won't upgrade (!)
On a sidenote, could you also build and include amsn's systray plugin ? I've seen 2 or 3 people asking for amsn packages that include that. Would be nice, especially as an addon RPM (e.g. amsn-systray) ;) (and some work as well, the amsn source code is an awful mess)
There is a c compiled libtray.so in 'util/linux/traydock' directory. Do you mean that or other separate plugin?
(and maybe we should take this thread to the opensuse-packaging list, that's why I'm cross-posting ;))
Of course ;)
Cheers,
Guillermo
El Miércoles, 23 de Noviembre de 2005 20:12, Jorge Luis Arzola escribió:
Hi:
El Miércoles, 23 de Noviembre de 2005 18:50, Guillermo Ballester Valor
escribió:
Hello Pascal,
El Miércoles, 23 de Noviembre de 2005 17:44, Pascal Bleser escribió:
Guillermo Ballester Valor wrote:
Hello,
Hola Guillermo
I've build new RPM packages for amsn, cvs version. They are called 'amsn_cvs' and have some nice and new features with respect the relased 'amsn 0.94'. Note that it is a development version. To install 'amsn_cvs' RPMs you need uninstall 'amsn' because of some conflicts.
If both packages conflict anyway, why do you call it "amsn_cvs" and not just "amsn" ?
I agree with pascal. Since the cvs package can not be installed in parrallel with the stable amsn, then there is no reason to use a different naming scheme.
Jorge, My aim was not to force any user of amsn-0.94 to upgrade to a cvs version when doing, as example, 'apt-get upgrade'. As I said, my first atempt was a naming scheme as you and Pascal suggested. May be I was wrong when I changed my mind. Cheers, Guillermo -- Guillermo Ballester Valor gbv@oxixares.com Ogijares, Granada SPAIN Public GPG KEY http://www.oxixares.com/~gbv/pubgpg.html #################################################### See World Weather Navigator at http://www.ogimet.com ####################################################
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Guillermo Ballester Valor wrote: ...
My aim was not to force any user of amsn-0.94 to upgrade to a cvs version when doing, as example, 'apt-get upgrade'. As I said, my first atempt was a naming scheme as you and Pascal suggested. May be I was wrong when I changed my mind.
Yes, I see what you mean. That's an always recurring issue. That's why I was speaking of having different repositories tagged as "experimental" and "stable", some 2 or 3 months ago. But Sonja bashed me on the opensuse list for being too debian ;)) (although to me it's not the same as Debian, it's just for community packager repositories, not for the core distribution itself). If people want the latest bleeding edge snapshot, then they use also add the "experimental" repository. If not, if they just want the latest stable releases, then they only use the "stable" repository. If you stick with "amsn_cvs", I'd strongly suggest to include a "Conflicts: amsn" in the spec file (if you didn't do it already ;)). cheers - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ <pascal.bleser@skynet.be> <guru@unixtech.be> _\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDhMuxr3NMWliFcXcRAhU7AKCwFaMCsZqlTvRYhP+ulClwUCUW2wCdFUwO uNchLMZJaXmwQbyU48b63/g= =kJQQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
El Miércoles, 23 de Noviembre de 2005 21:06, Pascal Bleser escribió:
That's an always recurring issue. That's why I was speaking of having different repositories tagged as "experimental" and "stable", some 2 or 3 months ago. But Sonja bashed me on the opensuse list for being too debian ;)) (although to me it's not the same as Debian, it's just for community packager repositories, not for the core distribution itself).
If people want the latest bleeding edge snapshot, then they use also add the "experimental" repository. If not, if they just want the latest stable releases, then they only use the "stable" repository.
If you stick with "amsn_cvs", I'd strongly suggest to include a "Conflicts: amsn" in the spec file (if you didn't do it already ;)).
Of course I did it :). And also I think is a good idea to have stable and experimental repositories. I'm not stuck with amsn_cvs, but because I already released the packages, I think it is better to left the things as is. I'd have to consult this stuff to the list before release the RPMS :( Guillermo -- Guillermo Ballester Valor gbv@oxixares.com Ogijares, Granada SPAIN Public GPG KEY http://www.oxixares.com/~gbv/pubgpg.html #################################################### See World Weather Navigator at http://www.ogimet.com ####################################################
Em Qua, 2005-11-23 às 21:29 +0100, Guillermo Ballester Valor escreveu:
I'm not stuck with amsn_cvs, but because I already released the packages, I think it is better to left the things as is. I'd have to consult this stuff
You can rename to 'amsn' then add 'Provides: amsn_cvs' and 'Obsoletes: amsn_cvs'. -- % Mauricio Teixeira (netmask) % mteixeira{a}webset{d}net <> Maceio/AL/BR % TI+Telecom Analyst <> Linux Specialist % http://mteixeira.webset.net <> http://pmping.sf.net % [D0CE 6BD4 526B B7D1 6F4E 85FA A7A0 1A6F B23A A9EE]
Hi Pascal, Am Mittwoch, 23. November 2005 21:06 schrieb Pascal Bleser:
Guillermo Ballester Valor wrote: ...
My aim was not to force any user of amsn-0.94 to upgrade to a cvs version when doing, as example, 'apt-get upgrade'. As I said, my first atempt was a naming scheme as you and Pascal suggested. May be I was wrong when I changed my mind.
Yes, I see what you mean. That's an always recurring issue. That's why I was speaking of having different repositories tagged as "experimental" and "stable", some 2 or 3 months ago. But Sonja bashed me on the opensuse list for being too debian ;)) (although to me it's not the same as Debian, it's just for community packager repositories, not for the core distribution itself).
SUSE already have "experimental" repos, for example: /projects/mozilla/experimental/ /pub/i386/supplementary/ Searching on the FTP-Server is borrowing... ;) I think one experimental repo for all this stuff is a better way! Detlef
Em Qua, 2005-11-23 às 17:44 +0100, Pascal Bleser escreveu:
That way it would supersede amsn-0.94 and yet, when a new release comes out (either 0.94.1 or 0.95), the release version will supersede the CVS snapshot again.
$ rpmver -v "amsn-0.94_20051123 < amsn-0.94.1" RPM version amsn-0.94_20051123 is not lesser than version amsn-0.94.1. $ rpmver -v "amsn-0.94_20051123 < amsn-0.95" RPM version amsn-0.94_20051123 is lesser than version amsn-0.95. $ rpmver -v "amsn-0.95beta1 < amsn-0.95" RPM version amsn-0.95beta1 is not lesser than version amsn-0.95. $ rpmver -v "amsn-0.95_0.1 < amsn-0.95" RPM version amsn-0.95_0.1 is not lesser than version amsn-0.95. -- % Mauricio Teixeira (netmask) % mteixeira{a}webset{d}net <> Maceio/AL/BR % TI+Telecom Analyst <> Linux Specialist % http://mteixeira.webset.net <> http://pmping.sf.net % [D0CE 6BD4 526B B7D1 6F4E 85FA A7A0 1A6F B23A A9EE]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mauricio Teixeira (netmask) wrote:
Em Qua, 2005-11-23 às 17:44 +0100, Pascal Bleser escreveu:
That way it would supersede amsn-0.94 and yet, when a new release comes out (either 0.94.1 or 0.95), the release version will supersede the CVS snapshot again.
$ rpmver -v "amsn-0.94_20051123 < amsn-0.94.1" RPM version amsn-0.94_20051123 is not lesser than version amsn-0.94.1.
Oooh.. ok, then it should be amsn-0.94_0.0_20051123 (that's usually how I do it, actually). Where is that rpmver coming from ? - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ <pascal.bleser@skynet.be> <guru@unixtech.be> _\_v FOSDEM 2006 -- 25+26 February 2006 in Brussels -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDhdrKr3NMWliFcXcRAsxUAJ0WH9AiSPfNtGfIyB766asgamaGYwCcCKOi GUYuNuDPTof9fSuQGpiotxU= =zYso -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Em Qui, 2005-11-24 às 16:22 +0100, Pascal Bleser escreveu:
Oooh.. ok, then it should be amsn-0.94_0.0_20051123 (that's usually how I do it, actually).
$ rpmver -v "amsn-0.94_0.0_20051123 < amsn-0.94.1" RPM version amsn-0.94_0.0_20051123 is lesser than version amsn-0.94.1. Although it's an ugly number... :)
Where is that rpmver coming from ?
It's little tool written by Conectiva. I'll build a package to Suse when I get some time to read packaging rules. :) -- % Mauricio Teixeira (netmask) % mteixeira{a}webset{d}net <> Maceio/AL/BR % TI+Telecom Analyst <> Linux Specialist % http://mteixeira.webset.net <> http://pmping.sf.net % [D0CE 6BD4 526B B7D1 6F4E 85FA A7A0 1A6F B23A A9EE]
participants (5)
-
Detlef Reichelt -
Guillermo Ballester Valor -
Jorge Luis Arzola -
Mauricio Teixeira (netmask) -
Pascal Bleser