Re: NMU versioning (was: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads)
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:17:12PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > > I want a consistent versioning scheme, thus +nmuX for both native and
> > > non-natives packages.
> >
> > I'd be very unhappy about that. For one, I think using such suffix in a
> > field that forms part of users' everyday's life is, uhm, inappropriate
> > or disruptive. What do they care if the version is a NMU or not?
>
> Hu? And +dfsg is and +b1 is also inappropriate and disruptive?
>
> I simply don't follow your reasoning here. While most users do not care
> about NMU vs non-NMU, I don't think they would be troubled with
> the extension... at least not any more than any other extension that
> we already use for various purposes.
>
As a user of Debian, it is informative to some users to know something
about the package by reading this information 'encoded' in the filename.
just my 2 yen.
--
| .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: |
| : :' : The Universal |mysite.verizon.net/kevin.mark/|
| `. `' Operating System | go to counter.li.org and |
| `- http://www.debian.org/ | be counted! #238656 |
| my keyserver: subkeys.pgp.net | my NPO: cfsg.org |
|join the new debian-community.org to help Debian! |
|_______ Unless I ask to be CCd, assume I am subscribed _______|
Reply to: