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

Re: dchanges file for non-intel archs

On Sat, 2 Mar 1996, Michael Meskes wrote:

> [...]
> I think packages that are maintained by the original maintainer should have a
> revision field. I just updated my watchdog package. It is available on
> tsx-11 (and maybe sunsite in the future) for non-Debian users, but I do
> maintain the Debian package myself. The update was needed because the
> package had no postrm file. This change is Debian related, so I move from
> 1.0 to 1.0-1. I don't like the idea of having to update my package version
> for a change that is useless on non-Debian systems.

You raise a good point here.  There is clearly a difference between a 
package which is intended to be primarily for Debian (like dpkg &c), and 
those which just happen to be maintained by the same person (like your 
watchdog package).  I would suggest that the latter should have a 
revision field like all other packages - after all, the maintainer of the 
Debian package could change, and having to change the version number 
format just because the maintainer has changed seems messy to me (as well 
as the reason which you point out).

Personally, I'm in favour of not making revision numbers mandatory for 
Debian-only packages, the former group I mentioned above; you can always 
use a patchlevel in the normal way, e.g. dpkg-1.1.0 .


Reply to: