Bug#850729: debian-policy: Documenting special version number suffixes
Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> writes:
> 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 Consider my informal "unseconding" rescinded then.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 a separate bug is fine -- we can start the discussion that way, in
the bug. I think there was some previous debian-devel discussion of this,
but I don't think it reached any conclusion.
Thanks!
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: