On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 02:15:10AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> writes: > > 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. > > Please read section 5.10.2.1. of your Developer's Reference. > Ok, the hopefully nowadays very rare "magic" version bumping to get a > recompile of an already install package uploaded. > Does that happen anymore? Of course it does. Is there some reason you think that out-of-sync buildds are a solved problem? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature