No EPOCH in package filenames for Ubuntu

[Dmitry Sutyagin]

Packages for Ubuntu are for some reason built without epoch in filenames. This is only the case with Mirantis packages, upstream packages always have name identical to Package+Version+Architecture values inside the package.

Example of incorrect name: http://fuel-repository.mirantis.com/fwm/7.0/ubuntu/pool/main/n/nova/python-nova_2015.1.1-1~u14.04%2bmos19662_all.deb
Package filename is "python-nova_2015.1.1-1~u14.04+bmos19662_all.deb"
Real version is "1:2015.1.1-1~u14.04+mos19662"
Package filename should be "python-nova_1:2015.1.1-1~u14.04+bmos19662_all.deb"

Example of correct name: http://fuel-repository.mirantis.com/fwm/6.0/ubuntu/pool/main/bsdutils_1%3a2.20.1-1ubuntu3.1_amd64.deb
Package filename is "bsdutils_1:2.20.1-1ubuntu3.1_amd64.deb"

Please fix the build jobs.

[Dmitry Sutyagin (dsutyagin)]

Why is this important to me?

I am working on https://mirantis.jira.com/browse/MCV-108, and to build the database of package versions we have ever built for each release I use Jenkins logs, since there is no place where all package versions are kept, and I cannot go through packages to unpack them and extract correct versions. The problem is that when extracting versions from filenames in logs I get incorrect versions for packages with epoch.

[Roman Podoliaka (rpodolyaka)]

MOS Packaging, could you please take a look if this is expected?

[Ivan Udovichenko (iudovichenko)]

"upstream packages always have name identical to Package+Version+Architecture values inside the package."

Could you please provide examples ?

[Dmitry Sutyagin (dsutyagin)]

Ivan,

Example is in the original post:
package bsdutils
version is 1:2.20.1-1ubuntu3.1
filename is bsdutils_1:2.20.1-1ubuntu3.1_amd64.deb
http://fuel-repository.mirantis.com/fwm/6.0/ubuntu/pool/main/bsdutils_1%3a2.20.1-1ubuntu3.1_amd64.deb

[Ivan Udovichenko (iudovichenko)]

Dmitry,

Under upstream packages we usually mean packages which are stored in official repositories:
http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/
http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu

And from what I see there:
http://packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/bsdutils
http://packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/amd64/bsdutils/download
Epoch is not part of file name.

Anyway, if you need specified behavior, please consult Fuel Build Team at first.
But I'm pretty sure you don't need epoch number in binary name.
You can use metadata which is usually stored in repositories.

[Dmitry Sutyagin (dsutyagin)]

Ivan,

Right, I actually did not think about using Packages file earlier. Still this does not solve my problem, but makes the bug irrelevant. I guess you change the status of this bug to "Opinion".

The reason I need epoch in filename in because I parse Jenkins logs to get data, and I do that because I cannot get metadata for previous states of the repos 5.1 to 6.1, we only have repo snapshots for 7.0+.

[Thomas Goirand (thomas-goirand)]

Hi Dmitry and everyone else.

There's unfortunately no EPOCH in filenames. This isn't a bug, but a feature of EPOCH and dpkg-dev. This has been discussed for a long time in the <email address hidden> list, and apparently, everyone agrees that dpkg-dev should be fixed for that. So if you want this to be fixed, fix it upstream and provide a patch to dpkg-dev. In the mean while, in no way, there should be a bug in MOS because of this.