Re: binNMUs and versions
* Joachim Breitner (email@example.com) [100611 22:23]:
> Am Freitag, den 11.06.2010, 21:30 +0200 schrieb Andreas Barth:
> > * Joachim Breitner (firstname.lastname@example.org) [100611 20:06]:
> > > Am Freitag, den 11.06.2010, 18:25 +0200 schrieb Andreas Barth:
> > > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > from a „user“ POV, I’m all for it. I find the current state quite
> > > confusing.
> > I would tend to put the proper version number in all fields, and the
> > binnmu_* only to exist until the package reaches the installed state.
> > What do you think?
> I’d rather see the binNMU version in the installed_version field – after
> all, for that architecture, that is the version that is installed. When
> filing a binNMU it is confusing to first see it go from 1.0-1
> (Installed) to 1.0-1+b1 (Needs-Build) to 1.0-1+b1 (Built) to 1.0-1
> (Installed). I’d expect it to stay at 1.0-1+b1 (Installed), if you know
> what I mean.
Eh, I need to translate myself I assume:
"I would tend to put the version number including the binary epoch
(e.g. 1.2.3+b1) in all fields, ...".