Re: 2.6.13, experimental and 2.6.14-rc ...

[Horms <horms@debian.org>]

On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 02:20:53PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:30:28 +0100
> Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 01:09:59PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 06:45:13PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > > > I am, right at this moment, building 2.6.13-1.experimental.1, and
> > > 
> > > This should be 2.6.13-0.experimental.1, which would be lower than
> > > 2.6.13-1 which we would upload to unstable. Don't forget to make
> > > sure you include the .orig tarball though, as i don't think it is
> > > included in 0.experimental.1 by default.
> > 
> > That ought to be 2.6.13-0experimental1, otherwise various bits of the
> > archive maintenance software will treat it as a binary-only NMU in
> > some ways and get confused. I've made that mistake before ...
> 
> Oh, didn't know that. Is it (pseudo)documented anywhere?
> 
> I think I experienced once that a 0alphanum1 would not get upgraded
> automatically to a 0alphanum2 package. But if this is the proper way
> then I must've been dreaming.

For the record, Sven and I decided to go with 2.6.13-1, to avoid
confusion and some internal packaging complications.

-- 
Horms