Re: binary NMUs and version numbers
Anthony Towns <aj <at> azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[...]
> > Another case that should be considered is the existing use of + for
> > revisions of a cvs snapshot (e.g. mutt uses a + but always does so):
> > 1.2-20041208 "<<" 1.2-20041208+2 "<<" 1.2-20041208+b1
>
> Hrm, why isn't this 1.2+20041208-1 ? Isn't the date describing the
> upstream version? Or "1.2-20041208-1", or "1.2+cvs20041208-1" or whatever.
>
> -rw-rw-r-- 16 katie debadmin 2908273 May 2 2004
> pool/main/m/mutt/mutt_1.5.6.orig.tar.gz
> -rw-rw-r-- 16 katie debadmin 412082 Nov 17 10:17
> pool/main/m/mutt/mutt_1.5.6-20040907+2.diff.gz
>
> It seems to result in rather large diffs, and I can't really see the
> benefit?
[...]
It is a payoff, larger diff for less frequent orig.tar.gz uploads. Instead
of uploading a 3MB mutt_1.5.6-20040915.orig.tar.gz the mutt maintainers can
upload a 400KB mutt_1.5.6-20040915+1.diff.gz when updating to CVS 20040915.
cu andreas
Reply to: