Bug#90511: proposal] disallow multi-distribution uploads
On 30-Mar-01, 17:47 (CST), Brian Russo <brusso@phys.hawaii.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 12:45:31PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > + One example of this is if the current version of the
> > + <em>stable</em> and <em>unstable</em> package is 1.2-1, then
> > + a new upload can have 1.2-1.90 for <em>stable</em> and 1.2-2 for
> > + <em>unstable</em>. Each should be compiled on that
>
> personally I prefer the foo-1.2-1.potato.1 notation
Likewise. Picking arbitrary numbers strikes me as unwise, particularly
".90" because it looks like the common beta release convention, not
something we want to look like we're doing with the "stable" release.
> i always thought incremental debian revisions were for NMU's?
I use them on post release revisions, just because it seemed the obvious
thing to do. If someone really cares whether or not it was an NMU, the
can always look at the changelog. Another possiblity is simply 1.2-1a,
1.2-1b, etc.
One possible problem with the 1.2-1.potato.1 convention is what is the
proper syntax for an NMU of a stable package? 1.2-1.potato.0.1? It gets
silly pretty fast.
The whole point of the NMU -x.y convention (as I recall) was simply to
make sure that the NMU'r and the developer didn't accidentally re-use
the same revision number.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <stevegr@debian.org>
Reply to: