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