Re: RFS: sqlitebrowser (updated package)
Hi,
[ CCed sqlitebrowser's maintainer ]
Stefan Haller <haliner@googlemail.com> writes:
> I upgraded the package “sqlitebrowser” to a new upstream
> release. The latest release is 2.0b1. That’s why I’ve choosen
> “1.9+2.0b1-1” as Debian version number. The package uses now the the
> new dpkg-source format “3.0 quilt”, so I’ve changed many files in
> the debian/-directory. (I hope this is ok?)
Why not use 2.0~b1-1 as a version number? It is easier to understand and
still sorts before a stable 2.0-1 release.
If this ends up as a NMU, you should refrain from making too many
unrelated changes such as switching to the new source format (but see
below).
> The package is not my own package, so if this not the right place to ask,
> please give me a hint ;)
You should first try to contact the maintainer before doing a NMU. If
the maintainer seems inactive, contact the MIA team so the package
can be orphaned properly. See also the Developer's Reference [1].
[1] <http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/beyond-pkging.html#mia-qa>
> Lintian also complains, because it’s a NMU, but the version number doesn’t
> reflect this. But I packaged a new upstream release, I don’t know how the
> version number should look like in such a case.#
If I remember correctly that would be 2.0~b1-0.1.
Regards,
Ansgar
Reply to: