Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1
Adrian Bunk <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 09:18:18AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 08:59:54AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > Nothing stops me from using Version 220.127.116.11.18.104.22.168.9.
> > It's sure that this system of numeration only works for non-native
> > Debian packages. It's not clear at all how to distinguish a NMU or a
> > binary NMU on a native Debian package, without looking at the previous
> > revision in the changelog file...
> For source NMUs it's clearly defined in section 22.214.171.124. of your
> Developer's Reference, that says a source NMU of a native package gets a
> Debian revision of 0.1 .
> Version : 1.0
> Source NMU : 1.0-0.1
Yep, but you have to go by the debian revision minor part. Numbering
the parts won't help.
> I haven't found it explicitely mentioned, but the logial version number
> for a binary NMU of version 1.0 would be 1.0-0.0.1 .
A binary NMU implies you haven't changed the source. If you change the
version number you have changed the source and must upload it too.
Thus binary NMU must have the same version number.
> Although this looks starange at a first glance, this gives a clear
> version that is under all circumstances lower than the next maintainer
> upload (this wouldn't be possible without adding a Debian revision to
> the NMU).
I use 1.2-3 -> 1.2-3.0.1 for debs privatly rebuild with optimisations.
That way either a NMU or maintainer upload has a higher version.