Steve Langasek wrote: > 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. :) Since you've thought about this, did you also consider the case of bin-NMUs of native packages? Is that even done? If it is, and the version gets a dash added to it as part of the bin-NMU mangling, such a bin-NMU could trigger #437392. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature