[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: version tracking

On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 02:42:01PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 03:31:36PM +1000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > I was wondering about this.  I received a bug report on cplay
> > (#207215) saying that there are some problems with Python 2.3.
> > So nothing in my package changed... another package changed and showed
> > some problems in my package.  

For this case, I don't think it's appropriate to imagine the problem
doesn't apply to the version in testing. We want to support partial
upgrades, and the version of python may well make it into testing before
the fixed version of your package.

> > So I assume I would tell v-t that the
> > bug has been there all the time, right?  But it's not really relevant
> > to the version in sarge since we dont have Python 2.3 there.

Other examples are things like "foo in unstable Build-Depends bar, which
used to be okay, but now we need one that B-Ds on bar2!".

These should probably be filed without a Version: at all - it's a bug
in the "package", but no particular version of the package. Ditto "New
upstream release" available. I think that avoids breaking anything,
and seems reasonably clear.

> I think in that case you'd have to drop back to tags. 

(I don't think this'll do a lot of good)


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review!
	-- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda

Attachment: pgpL53fh_yAju.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: