[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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:
> > 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?

ACK. Moreover as a user I *do* care about the various extensions since
they can carry a meaning to me: a +dfsg informs me that upstream ships
some non-free stuff which I should look for elsewhere in case of need,
and +nmu informs me that the package is/was experiencing maintenance
troubles in the recent past.

As such troubles are orthogonal to the distinction between
native/non-native I'm in favour of having +nmuX uniformly used for both
kind of packages.


Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{upsilon.cc,cs.unibo.it,debian.org}  -<%>-  http://upsilon.cc/zack/
(15:56:48)  Zack: e la demo dema ?    /\    All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15)  Bac: no, la demo scema    \/    right keys at the right time

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: