error on version numbers < that in the packaging

[Robert Collins]

bzr builder should error if the version number in new changelog entry
that it is writing is less than that in the debian/changelog.

 affects bzr-builder

[James Westby (james-w)]

On Tue Nov 17 05:14:33 UTC 2009 Robert Collins wrote:
> bzr builder should error if the version number in new changelog entry
> that it is writing is less than that in the debian/changelog.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with this one.

Say you are basing your work on lucid branches, but you are providing backports
for karmic, you want the version number to the less than the lucid one for
upgrades don't you?

It may still be a good thing to do, perhaps with a way to override.

   status incomplete
   importance low

Thanks,

James

[Robert Collins (lifeless)]

On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 16:14 +0000, James Westby wrote:
> On Tue Nov 17 05:14:33 UTC 2009 Robert Collins wrote:
> > bzr builder should error if the version number in new changelog entry
> > that it is writing is less than that in the debian/changelog.
>
> I'm not entirely sure I agree with this one.
>
> Say you are basing your work on lucid branches, but you are providing backports
> for karmic, you want the version number to the less than the lucid one for
> upgrades don't you?
>
> It may still be a good thing to do, perhaps with a way to override.

I'm 99% sure the toolchain will fail if you try this.

-Rob

[James Westby (james-w)]

On Sun Nov 22 22:25:49 UTC 2009 Robert Collins wrote:
> I'm 99% sure the toolchain will fail if you try this.

Something will fail if you have a changelog where the version numbers aren't
in strict descending order? Any clues as to what, as I'm pretty sure things
don't as I do this fairly often myself.

Thanks,

James

[Robert Collins (lifeless)]

On Sun, 2009-11-22 at 23:28 +0000, James Westby wrote:
> On Sun Nov 22 22:25:49 UTC 2009 Robert Collins wrote:
> > I'm 99% sure the toolchain will fail if you try this.
>
> Something will fail if you have a changelog where the version numbers aren't
> in strict descending order? Any clues as to what, as I'm pretty sure things
> don't as I do this fairly often myself.

dpkg-genchanges and dpkg-parsechangelog assume that the log is totally
sorted in dpkg-compareversion AFAIK. I haven't actually checked the code
myself though, so there could be a propogating rumour problem here.

-Rob

[James Westby (james-w)]

On Sun Nov 22 23:43:57 UTC 2009 Robert Collins wrote:
> dpkg-genchanges and dpkg-parsechangelog assume that the log is totally
> sorted in dpkg-compareversion AFAIK. I haven't actually checked the code
> myself though, so there could be a propogating rumour problem here.

jw2328@flash:builddeb/trunk:10080:0% dpkg-parsechangelog
Source: bzr-builddeb
Version: 2.2~ubuntu4
Distribution: UNRELEASED
Urgency: low
Maintainer: James Westby <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:44:46 +0100
Changes:
 bzr-builddeb (2.2~ubuntu4) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
 .
   *
jw2328@flash:builddeb/trunk:10081:0% dch -v 2.1
dch: fatal error at line 999:
New version specified (2.1) is less than
the current version number (2.2~ubuntu4)! Use -b to force.
zsh: exit 25 dch -v 2.1
jw2328@flash:builddeb/trunk:10082:25% dch -v 2.1 -b
dch warning: new version (2.1) is less than
the current version number (2.2~ubuntu4).
jw2328@flash:builddeb/trunk:10083:0% dpkg-parsechangelog
Source: bzr-builddeb
Version: 2.1
Distribution: karmic
Urgency: low
Maintainer: James Westby <email address hidden>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:53:23 -0500
Changes:
 bzr-builddeb (2.1) karmic; urgency=low
 .
   *
jw2328@flash:builddeb/trunk:10084:0% dpkg-genchanges
dpkg-genchanges: warning: the current version (2.1) is smaller than the previous one (2.2~ubuntu4)
dpkg-genchanges: error: cannot read files list file: No such file or directory
zsh: exit 2 dpkg-genchanges
jw2328@flash:builddeb/trunk:10085:2%

So you get warning, but they are not fatal. (The fatal error at the end is that
I hadn't built, not the changelog ordering)

Thanks,

James