Re: Proposed MBF: Debian upstream version higher than watch file-reported upstream version
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:55:26 -0600 Raphael Geissert
<atomo64+debian@gmail.com> wrote:
>Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On Sunday 17 February 2008 17:22, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>>>
>>> If Debian's 0.11+1-1 is upstream's 0.11 why not just strip the '+1'
using
>>> dversionmangle?
>>> That's in my POV the bug.
>>>
>> I think rewriting watch files for one time events is a mistake. If this
>> were
>> a permanent feature of the version numbering I would agree.
>
>The thing is, when you make such kind of uploads all you have to make sure
>is that uscan still says your package is up to date.
>
>> I suppose the
>> easiest solution for me to not be bothered about this would be to remove
>> the watch file on the next upload.
>
>You won't be bothered if you also maintain the watch file.
>And as I said in my response to Raphael Hertzog I could skip those where
the
>Debian version has something like +svn, +cvs, -pre, and also probably skip
>those such as yours: +n.
Fair enough.
>But those I really don't want to exclude are the ones
>having 'dsfg', 'ds', 'debian', or ones whose watch file really reports an
>older version (e.g. in Debian: 2.3.1, upstream: 2.0.1).
>
There are also packages where an upstream release is missing entirely.
This sounds more reasonable to me, but I think you should publish a revised
list and give maintainers a chance to respond.
Scott K
Reply to: