Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped
Christian T. Steigies writes ("Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped"):
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 08:41:00PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > [...] So what I'd advise *now* would be to increase the revision
> > to 12 and carry on from there.
>
> This has been addressed by policy now, does you recommendation still hold?
I see no relevant difference between the views expressed by Simon in
his email, and the statement now codified in policy.
I agree with the policy and IMO Simon's recommendations are good.
> I understand the explanation for source and binary package, but I wonder if
> I have the right interpretation for the upstream source code:
>
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#uniqueness-of-version-numbers
> 3.2.2. Uniqueness of version numbers
> ...
> Additionally, for non-native packages, the upstream version must not be
> reused for different upstream source code, so that for each source package
> name and upstream version number there exists exactly one original source
> archive contents (see Files).
>
> Since the intial upload was as native package, and the latest as non-native,
> this does not apply to moon-buggy and I can upload with revision 12 as you
> suggested?
I think this is correct, yes.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: