Re: libc5 uploads for bo
Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> Hi folks!
>
> 1. The version should be distinct from the "unstable" version (e.g.
> to identify bug reports)
>
> 2. The version has to be greater than the "stable" version and
> less than the "unstable" version (to make upgrades to the
> "unstable" version possible)
right
> For a bo-uploaded package, the version number is taken from the
> corresponding "unstable" package, with the Debian revision
> decremented by 1 and ".bo" appended.
>
> For example, "foo_1.2-5" in unstable will be "foo_1.2-4.bo" in
> "bo-unstable".
This could be a good start, but what later?
I mean the next version, will be foo_1.2-6 for unstable, and for
bo-unstable?
foo_1.2-5.bo fails condition 2b (less than the unstable: I read less
than _all_ the unstable versions of that package, otherways you could
upgrade a libc6 to a libc5).
I would prefere to see the corresponding hamm version number attached;
these releases are made as twin packages, no?
Fabrizio
--
| fpolacco@icenet.fi fpolacco@debian.org fpolacco@pluto.linux.it
| Pluto Leader - Debian Developer & Happy Debian 1.3.1 User - vi-holic
| 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E
> Just because Red Hat do it doesn't mean it's a good idea. [Ian J.]
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: