From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from protonic.xs4all.nl ([213.84.116.84]) by metis.ext.pengutronix.de with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Sccq1-00051P-E0 for ptxdist@pengutronix.de; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 15:33:22 +0200 Received: from archvile (archvile.prtnl [192.168.1.153]) by protonic.xs4all.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74FFB287E3 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:29:51 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:33:21 +0200 From: David Jander Message-ID: <20120607153321.2572ccf8@archvile> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: [ptxdist] patchlevel version numbers.... Reply-To: ptxdist@pengutronix.de List-Id: PTXdist Development Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ptxdist-bounces@pengutronix.de Errors-To: ptxdist-bounces@pengutronix.de To: ptxdist@pengutronix.de Hi all, My excuses if this had been asked before. I have not found any information about this issue: Currently version numbers in ptxdist (version 2011.12) are tightly coupled to the original source filename that is downloaded. This is in the end the version number in the package filename. But, what if there are local patches to the package (bug fixes, cross-compile fixes, etc...), shouldn't the package get a suffix to the version number (i.e. like debian package version numbers)? Now I have the situation that we have added extra patches to fix bugs in packages that were previously released to customers. I can't find a way to properly differentiate the new package from the old one. How is this supposed to be dealt with? Best regards, -- David Jander Protonic Holland. -- ptxdist mailing list ptxdist@pengutronix.de