Re: dchanges file for non-intel archs

[richard@uk.geeks.org (Richard Kettlewell)]

>>>       For packages specific to the debian distribution or having no
>>>       upstream main- tainer, the debian revision number might be
>>>       arbitrarily set to 0 or 1.
>>
>>Why not simply not have a revision number at all, as with current
>>practice?
>
>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.

Indeed - but that's a reason for making it *possible* to have a
revision number.  I'm asking why Bill is (apparently) proposing to
*require* a revision field.

-- 
Richard Kettlewell
http://www.elmail.co.uk/staff/richard/                    richard@uk.geeks.org
                                        Take the longest day/Waste it all away
                                      I can't stand it/But I can't do anything