[Starlingx-discuss] discuss about initial value of TIS_PATCH_VER when upgrade packages

[Chris Friesen]

I agree that we'd eventually want to switch to "stx" instead of "tis".

The way that we did it previously was to consistently have the meaning 
of the ".x" be "the number of changes made to the upstream package".  So 
the first time you make a change it'd be ".1", then you make another 
change and it'd be ".2", and then if you upgrade to a newer base package 
but keep both changes it'd have a new upstream base version but still be 
".2" for the version suffix.

For what it's worth, CentOS and Debian do things a bit differently.  
When they move to a new upstream version of the package they switch back 
to "-1" regardless of the number of patches .  So you'd have something 
like 0.14.0-1, then 0.14.0-2, then 0.15.2-1.  OpenSUSE has a more 
complicated suffix like "-5.3.1", I'm not sure what their rules for 
updating it are.

Given the above, I could see a rationale for reducing confusion by 
aligning with CentOS and switching back to ".1" when bumping  upstream 
versions.  But I still think there is value in the previous mechanism as 
it gives a general idea of how much a given package differs from upstream.

Chris

On 1/7/2019 5:48 PM, Saul Wold wrote:
>
> I also think we should really be switching to stx.0, but that's a 
> different discussion I would guess.

<snip>

> I guess I am about the consistency of the meaning of tis.<x> when it 
> increments, such that starting at 0 and later incrementing means 
> change occurs vs starting at N want meaning a patch count and later 
> incrementing and not really having a meaning any more, my OCD kind of 
> kicks in.