-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 211
Fix deb package version field #3157
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
Mycron
wants to merge
2
commits into
easybuilders:develop
Choose a base branch
from
Mycron:FIX-3143
base: develop
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -32,7 +32,6 @@ | |
from easybuild.tools.package.package_naming_scheme.pns import PackageNamingScheme | ||
from easybuild.tools.version import VERSION as EASYBUILD_VERSION | ||
|
||
|
||
class EasyBuildPNS(PackageNamingScheme): | ||
"""Class implmenting the default EasyBuild packaging naming scheme.""" | ||
|
||
|
@@ -50,4 +49,4 @@ def version(self, ec): | |
# cfr. http://rpm.org/ticket/56, | ||
# https://debian-handbook.info/browse/stable/sect.manipulating-packages-with-dpkg.html (see box in 5.4.3) | ||
ebver.replace('dev', '~dev') | ||
return 'eb-%s' % ebver | ||
return '%s~eb' % ebver | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. What you should do is add a timestamp after the ~eb, as in ~eb-yyyymmdd to make it possible to update the eb built package automatically. Using the |
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm no expert here but shouldn't we somehow concat this with the change below so the function returns either
4.x.x~eb
or4.x.x~ebdev
...or is it ok to have 2~
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good information to clarify and analyze it may be here: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#version
As I understand, having two tildas is allowed. And in the case of having
4.x.x~eb
and4.x.x~dev~eb
, the first one seems to be the latestThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To be honest, I didn't check such form for the case of rpm packages
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For me then this seems ok, but maybe @boegel should give the final ok