On 14/02/11 21:56, Martin Pool wrote: > On 15 February 2011 01:27, Daniel Hollocher <danielhollocher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Thanks for the tips folks. I'm not sure how much changing the version is an >> option for me. >> >>> >>> It's not messed up, but as others have said you can't reuse that version. >>> >>> If you just got it slightly wrong, increment the number and try again. >>> For example if you accidentally uploaded 2.2 as 2.3-1ubuntu1, and you >>> now want to upload the real 2.3, just say 2.3-1ubuntu-2. If you used >>> a number very far in the future and the real series will never pass >>> that, you need to use an epoch as Umang suggested. >>> >>> If you need help say more about your particular case. >> >> >> I'm trying to maintain a patch against the kernel, and I'm trying to script >> most of the re-packaging. I made some mistakes and I ended up uploading a >> maverick versioned meta-linux to the lucid series. So 2.6.35 instead of >> 2.6.32, ie, for the life of lucid. I believe I have the issue fixed, so it >> shouldn't be a problem in the future. But it is still good to know that I >> have to be careful. >> I'm using a testing ppa, soo, I think worse comes to worse, I think I can >> just create a new testing ppa. And regarding changing the epoch, I suspect >> that just making a new ppa makes more sense and is less risky. >> Let me know if there is anything wrong with my approach. > > I think this is a reasonable approach, assuming you don't have so many > people following the ppa that changing urls will be a problem. > > You might even get away with deleting and then re-creating the ppa. It is impossible to recreate a PPA with the name of a deleted one (for now?). However, if there are no people following the PPA, it should be fine to delete the 2.6.35whatever and later upload a replacement 2.6.32whatever. This is perfectly possible (e.g. see https://launchpad.net/~bzr/+archive/daily/+packages?field.name_filter=builddeb&field.status_filter=&field.series_filter=lucid where the published version is 2.5.1, but 2.6 was previously published) The thing you need to be aware of is that if anyone *is* following your PPA, they will not get any updates to the package in question until they manually remove the erroneously versioned package - if this is a problem, then the standard thing to do is to version your package as 2.6.35really2.6.32whatever Max.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
This is the launchpad-users mailing list archive — see also the general help for Launchpad.net mailing lists.
(Formatted by MHonArc.)