Package version number

lukslab · 2008-02-15 16:52:56

First of all hi to all of you!

I'm little confuesd from time to time, when upgrading my system. For example downloading firefox 2.0.0.12-x two times day by day. I assume that -x stands for build number of specific package, am I right ?

If so wouldn't be beter to place newest packages first to testing repo and after one or two days move to extra ? Somthing like that would prevent people (using only core and extra repos) from downloading same thing for 2 or more times. I think that testing, unstable and even community are the best place to test package not core and extra.

Arch is supposed to be a bleeding edge distro with newest software, I understand that. But I think it would be best to test builds for few days before they get to core or extra.

Last edited by lukslab (2008-02-15 17:00:12)

Cerebral · 2008-02-15 16:57:33

You are correct - the number after the dash is essentially the 'build' number of the package.

lukslab wrote:

Arch is supposed to be a bleeding edge distro with newest software, I understand that. But I think it would be best to test builds for few days before the get to core or extra.

We already do this with every core package - they go to testing, and at least one developer (that didn't build the package) must sign off the package (indicating it works for them) before it goes into core.

brebs · 2008-02-15 17:00:56

It contained security fixes - we want those ASAP.

lukslab · 2008-02-15 17:04:21

And are there same plans for extra ? Downloadnig firefox for second or even third time is not such a big problem, but openoffice....

lukslab · 2008-02-15 17:10:49

brebs wrote:

It contained security fixes - we want those ASAP.

I understand why it is crucial for some packages to be as fast as possible in extra, but sometimes few hours in testing would be enough to find out that there's something wrong with build.

SpookyET · 2008-02-15 20:21:07

Some times I do wish that Linux would move to a patchy system instead of a full download.

neotuli · 2008-02-15 22:10:10

This is one of those recurring issues that comes up over and over again, so it's not much use mashing the issue again (hey! i want a bright blue neon bikeshed!).
We think we've implemented a decent system, and I think we're all fairly satisfied with the way it's working for us.
More specific to your concern about downloading large packages too often, I'd suggest not updating your system as frequently. Try once a week instead of once a day, for instance. This way, if there happen to be large releases in rapid succession like that you won't have to download the older versions.

Hide · 2008-02-15 23:24:13

SpookyET wrote:

Some times I do wish that Linux would move to a patchy system instead of a full download.

Definitely! Foresight (well, Conary system) and Pardus have this type of upgrade. Give them a try

z0phi3l · 2008-02-16 00:19:54

lukslab wrote:

brebs wrote:
It contained security fixes - we want those ASAP.
I understand why it is crucial for some packages to be as fast as possible in extra, but sometimes few hours in testing would be enough to find out that there's something wrong with build.

It's not because of build errors, it's pushing through updates from Mozilla

shining · 2008-02-16 11:48:57

SpookyET wrote:

Some times I do wish that Linux would move to a patchy system instead of a full download.

There is a xdelta support in the work (for pacman, makepkg and repo-add). Anyone is free and welcome to contribute.

jacko · 2008-02-16 14:06:07

lukslab wrote:

brebs wrote:
It contained security fixes - we want those ASAP.
I understand why it is crucial for some packages to be as fast as possible in extra, but sometimes few hours in testing would be enough to find out that there's something wrong with build.

There was nothing wrong with the build, it worked just fine, except for the occasional security flaw left wide open for an attacker. How exactly do you test that before putting into 'extra'?

You make it sound so easy, but have u tried to be a developer and release packages? Not everyone on the internet works at the same time, what is a normal day for you is an evening and morning for someone else.

I was gonna mention xdelta, but I see shining already did that, maybe u could offer some of your expertise to this project...

lukslab · 2008-02-16 23:32:35

jacko wrote:

There was nothing wrong with the build, it worked just fine ....

If everything was fine, why there was firefox-2.0.0.12-1 and firefox-2.0.0.12-2 ?? If I understand things good it was only second build of the same code.

jacko wrote:

You make it sound so easy, but have u tried to be a developer and release packages? Not everyone on the internet works at the same time, what is a normal day for you is an evening and morning for someone else.

No I haven't. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to criticize developers or package maintainers. If it's a problem I can live with that

Arch Linux

#1 2008-02-15 16:52:56

Package version number

#2 2008-02-15 16:57:33

Re: Package version number

#3 2008-02-15 17:00:56

Re: Package version number

#4 2008-02-15 17:04:21

Re: Package version number

#5 2008-02-15 17:10:49

Re: Package version number

#6 2008-02-15 20:21:07

Re: Package version number

#7 2008-02-15 22:10:10

Re: Package version number

#8 2008-02-15 23:24:13

Re: Package version number

#9 2008-02-16 00:19:54

Re: Package version number

#10 2008-02-16 11:48:57

Re: Package version number

#11 2008-02-16 14:06:07

Re: Package version number

#12 2008-02-16 23:32:35

Re: Package version number

Board footer