Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>]

On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 08:35:42AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
>...
> > > In that case, if we had libfoo0_1.0-1 in pre-testing, and
> > > libfoo0_1.0-2 in unstable, we'd end up with libfoo0_1.0-2.0.1 in
> > > pre-testing, and libfoo0_1.0-2.0.2 in unstable, whether the latter was
> > > rebuilt or just repacked.
> > 
> > These version numbers are currently assigned to binary only NMUs, it 
> > would create big confusion if they were also used for a different 
> > purpose.
> 
> But binary NMUs are not much different from what I'm proposing,
> especially if we're rebuilding each of these packages, or do I miss
> something ?

Consider the following:

unstable:
Version: 1.0-2

Binary NMU for unstable:
Version: 1.0-2.0.1

Your suggested pre-tesing package:
Version: 1.0-2.0.1


IOW:
There are two different packages with the same version number.


> Regards,

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed