[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 05:13:24PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Independent of your suggestions:
> It's never a good idea to use a version number namespace that is already 
> occupied for something different.

OK, good point.

If we were to use a different component of the Debian revision for
pre-testing-like rebuilds, it probably has to be given a greater
weight than that of binary NMUs, so we'd have to make the latter use
the 4th decimal place, and use the 3rd one for pre-testing-like
rebuilds instead.  Correct ?

> E.g. a binary NMU might cause your suggested pre-tesing package to be 
> rejected.

So it's safe: it's been rejected and can be attempted again after
incrementing version.  And if my suggestion to change ownership of
decimal places in Debian revision gets used, then the binary NMU comes
at the same time, it won't be rejected when entering incoming, but
when attempting to put it into unstable, so that does not change

So maybe pre-testing-like rebuilds should get the 4th decimal place
instead ?  Hm, maybe...

Yann Dirson    <ydirson@altern.org> |    Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
Debian-related: <dirson@debian.org> |   Support Debian GNU/Linux:
Pro:    <yann.dirson@fr.alcove.com> |  Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratuity
     http://ydirson.free.fr/        | Check <http://www.debian.org/>

Reply to: