Hello, On Fri 07 Sep 2018 at 10:48PM -0700, Joseph Herlant wrote: > The Developer's reference explains a lot about NMUs and corresponding version > scheme but it does not explain the naming convention to use when you have to > revert an NMU that brings a new upstream version. > Lintian has a check about it (https://lintian.debian.org/tags/epoch-changed- > but-upstream-version-did-not-go-backwards.html), so it seems the format is > wildly accepted. > So maybe a not about it here would be a good thing. > > I took the liberty to provide a patch via a MR: > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/developers-reference/merge_requests/4 > > Let me know if adding that paragraph would be ok and if the wording is correct. > I'm not sure on how to handle the po files. Let me know if I can help on that > too. LGTM -- it matches the recent change to Policy about this. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature