Bug#850729: debian-policy: Documenting special version number suffixes
Hi!
On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 11:39:01 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> writes:
> > 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'd kind of like to keep the discussion of whether to convert native
> packages to non-native when doing NMUs separate from the version numbering
> convention if we can, since the latter is just a way of documenting what
> people are actually doing currently (whether they should do so or not).
Fair enough. Consider my informal "unseconding" rescinded then. :) Also
given that we already have such packages in the archive, even if we end
up deciding to change the practice it might still be good to document
it for historical reasons?
I can file a separate bug report if you want? Or would you prefer
discussion to take place beforehand?
> I think my existing patch in #542288 gets most of this but not all of it.
> I forget why I didn't apply that in my current cleanup -- I think there
> were some open questions there, maybe about the native NMU thing?
I'd have to reread the patch. ;)
Thanks,
Guillem
Reply to: