Re: RFS: v3c-2.4.0-01
On 2011-12-16 18:34:22 +0000 (+0000), Philip Ashmore wrote:
[...]
> I guess I shouldn't post the updates to SourceForge GIT until I
> can get v3c accepted to Debian.
>
> Won't lintian/sponsors complain that the version being submitted
> is newer than the upstream version - the version pointed to by the
> watch file?
Packages officially included in Debian quite often need to be
maintained by different individuals than the upstream software
authors, thus packaging-related work is best managed as a separate
project from the upstream source it packages so that it doesn't get
in the way of those efforts. In Debian source and binary package
file names you'll see the upstream version and Debian package
version are different numbers separated by a hyphen (-). This way,
when only the packaging itself is modified you don't need to
increase the upstream version component since the upstream
tarball(s) remain unchanged from the previous package.
Some pedants will likely bring up native packages as an exception to
this, but in years on this list I don't think I've ever seen a DD
sponsor a native package as new so it's not particularly relevant in
this case.
If your upstream source and Debian packaging are truly separate,
then any changes to your upstream code needed to ease your packaging
work can be committed to your git repository before you start
requesting sponsoring of your Debian source package. That said, if
you have a reasonable need to get a sponsor to upload a package
containing a newer upstream version than the published one (an
embargoed security patch, for example), that shouldn't pose a
problem for a sponsor as long as it's explained sufficiently.
--
{ IRL(Jeremy_Stanley); WWW(http://fungi.yuggoth.org/); PGP(43495829);
WHOIS(STANL3-ARIN); SMTP(fungi@yuggoth.org); FINGER(fungi@yuggoth.org);
MUD(kinrui@katarsis.mudpy.org:6669); IRC(fungi@irc.yuggoth.org#ccl); }
Reply to: