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

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 07:57:47PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 07:53:47PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> writes:
> >...
> > > 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.
> >...

> That's wrong.

Nevertheless, 1.0-0.0.1 is an impossible version number for a
recompile-only NMU unless the previous MU was numbered 1.0-0 (which
would be quite atypical).

You could have 1.0-0.1.1 (recompile-only NMU of a source NMU of a
non-native package) or 1.0-1.0.1 (recompile-only NMU of a MU of a
non-native package), but 1.0-0.0.1 would be quite strange indeed.

Incidentally, I don't see that the developer's reference specifies how
to handle a recompilation-only upload for a native package.  Would that
be 1.0.1? 1.0-0.0.1?

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: