DilOS: use platform specific pathes #34

DilOS specific pathes

Signed-off-by: Denis Kozadaev denis@dilos.org

One little change out there doesn't make sense to me. Please, can you explain it to me?

I will ask platform owner about such versioning. Last time I've asked him, he was disagree on it. Currently we use the same version for packages marked for all architectures if we can copy them as is. If we patch pre/post scripts in such packages we modify the version too (add +dilosN tail)

platform owner is agree

The debian9 label that you kept in the version number indicates what versions of Debian packages are used for? Or does it have no connection and can you really replace it with dilosN?

the owner started porting from debian 9 or so, if I leave compat 7 it shows many warnings about compatibility and I just changed it to 9.
If it's a problem I will restore it.

I didn't mean the debhelper version listed in the compat file – it's no problem that you raised it to 9. We can't do that yet, because we support older distributions.

I meant the debian9.0.0 that you use in your current package version scheme. This part of the version number we discussed above and which I proposed to change to dilosN. Therefore, I wonder if this part is important to you, and it would be useful to keep debian9 there, or whether it makes sense to replace it with dilosN.

we don't care about "dilos" in version at all, it's just a marker for dilos packages

Please, what is your current packages version scheme?

I looked into the repository at http://apt.dilos.org/ and there I see following version scheme: 14.0.6~pre29-0debian9.0.0+9+dilos1. In the packages found there (for example tdm-trinity), $version3 and $version3_next contain the expected 14.0.6~ and 14.0.7~. Version counting works correctly here, the versions do not contain any unexpected strings, and this did not require any modifications to versions.pl.

You have changed the version scheme that now as a result, editing versions.pl is required?

You see result of your debian source packages, I took it, patch and push the source packages into our repository. As I said, we added +dilosN to the original version.
In some time I will revert it, I'd like to fix some issues, including visibility in qmake.conf

 ($version2 = $version3) =~ s/\.[^.]+$//;
 ($version3_next = $version3) =~ s/(?<=\.)(\d+)[a-z]?$/($1+1)/e;
 ($version3_next = $version3) =~ s/(?<=\.)(\d+)[a-z]?/($1+1)/e;