Fix packagecloud repo- and packagename

[sjaeckel]

No description provided.

[sjaeckel]

I'll leave this open for comments on #557

[sjaeckel]

The versioning should be done compliant to https://linux.die.net/man/5/deb-version

[czurnieden]

That could be helpful for MoarVM (I think it's @MasterDuke17 who "represesents" them here?).

https://linux.die.net/man/5/deb-version

For those who have trouble parsing a natural language (e.g.: me ;-) ) it is formally (ABNF)

DECDIGIT     = %x30-39                            ; 0-9
ALNUM        = DECDIGIT / (%x41–5A / %x61–7A)     ; A-Za-z0-9
EXTRA        = %x2e / %x2b / %x7e                 ; '.' period, '+' plus, '~' tilde
COLON        = %x3a                               ; ':' colon
MINUS        = %x2d                               ; '-' minus

EPOCH        = 1*DECDIGIT COLON
DEBREVISION  = MINUS 1*(ALNUM / EXTRA)

UPSTRVER     = DECDIGIT / ALNUM / EXTRA           ; Upstream version number (original version number)

UPVERSION    = 1*DECDIGIT *UPSTRVER                   ; No extras
UPVERSIONEP  = 1*DECDIGIT *(UPSTRVER / COLON)         ; Epoch exists
UPVERSIONDEB = 1*DECDIGIT *(UPSTRVER / MINUS)         ; Debian revision number exists
UPVERSIONALL = 1*DECDIGIT *(UPSTRVER / COLON / MINUS) ; Both, an epoch and a Debian revision number exists

DEBVERSION  =  (EPOCH UPVERSIONALL DEBREVISION)
            =/ (EPOCH UPVERSIONEP             )
            =/ (      UPVERSIONDEB DEBREVISION)
            =/ (      UPVERSION               )

(Please correct me if I made an error)

[sjaeckel]

For those who have trouble parsing a natural language (e.g.: me ;-) ) it is formally (ABNF)

thx, that's exactly what I needed :D

I've renamed the packages now to libtommath-git resp. libtommath-git-dev if they originate from a non-tagged commit. This also allows us to publish an "official" libtommath resp. libtommath-dev package once we made a new release.

[czurnieden]

thx, that's exactly what I needed :D

So you think that was bold, coming from me of all people? ;-)

…once we made a new release.

Do you want to wait for the projects meant for 2.0 to get ready or do you want an intermediate version? I mean: there are a lot of bugfixes accumulated in develop. I think it is enough for an 1.3.0 although I said otherwise a couple of weeksmonths ago.

And if we do a proper Debian package we need a man-page.