Guillem Jover wrote...
> I think this is actually #542288? But I'll let the editors decide.
It is. So much for the feeling "It was hard to believe nobody came up
with this beforehand". Also, there's quite a lot to read now.
> > +nmu<num> Non-maintainer upload for native packages
>
> I've actually changed my mind over this one since seconding #542288,
> which I should probably unsecond. I think this is broken, and an NMU
> of a native packages should instead convert the packages to non-native
> and then use the normal non-native NMU versioning. See
> <https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/02/msg00230.html> and the
> surrounding sub-thread starting at
> <https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/01/msg00650.html> for my
> rationale.
I'm not quite instantly convinced - but if you want to change the
practice of handling NMUs for native packages, that should be
discussed before continuing here. Also I'm not sure whether this is
the appropriate place, just one data point: I find it a bit confusing
NMU versioning is so different for native and non-native packages und
would appriciate a unification just for that purpose.
[ other forms ]
> This all pretty much describe current practice, so they seem fine.
Thanks. My intent was just to document that current practice.
Christoph
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature