[resending to -backports, as a private mail to formorer got no reactions] On Wednesday 03 December 2014 18:00:13 Alexander Wirt wrote: > changelog since stable missing in changes file. Totally my fault, I'll upload a new one properly built. > I also don't think bumping the version number in that way is a good idea. Can you please elaborate a bit more on this? I had explained the weird versioning in a previous mail with the full rationale [0], is this comment of yours also taking that into account? (In brief, the +really is to avoid screwing up the DB upgrade in Jessie) > This probably prevents updating the package during upgrade to newstable. By "newstable" you mean "jessie"? If so, the full upgrades chain would be: "2.4.31-1+nmu2" -> "2.4.31+really2.4.40-3~bpo70+1" -> "2.4.40-3" While this is ugly as hell, it seems fine to me wrt. upgrading, but I am probably missing some details of your comment. If you have some spare moments, can you please explain this lengthier? [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-backports/2014/12/msg00000.html Thanks, Luca -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Luca Bruno (kaeso) : :' : The Universal O.S. | lucab (AT) debian.org `. `'` | GPG Key ID: 0x4F3BBEBF `- http://www.debian.org | Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.