Re: native NMUs
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 05:44:52PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>> We could do away with the concept of NMUs of native software, and do
>> away with this uncertanty, ambiguity, bugginess, etc. Simply say that
>> when a NMU of a native package is done, the package stops being native
>> in Debian (until the next maintainer upload, presumably). So the NMU
>> adds "-0.1" to the version number, like any NMU. The .orig.tar.gz from
>> the maintainer's last release is kept in the archive, with a .diff.gz
>> added that conveniently contains only the NMU's changes. Since it's not
>> a native package, it will be correct for the changelog to be installed
>> as changelog.Debian.gz, and correct for the version number to contain a
>> dash.
> I'm in total agreement with this. I was staying out of this thread
> because I've been one of the proponents of using -0.x for NMUs of native
> packages in spite of the inconsistency with Policy, and I wasn't sure
> that this reasoning wasn't just a post-hoc rationalization on my part.
> Since you've come to the same conclusion, I suppose it isn't. :)
It sounds great to me too.
Currently, I'm not sure Policy talks about NMUs at all. Should we add a
section somewhere that discusses them and goes over these issues?
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: