Olly Betts wrote: > On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:39:26PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: >> Wookey <wookey@aleph1.co.uk> writes: >>> Here is mail from upstream about minor patch to fix uninstallability >>> of survex-aven on hppa. I assume this is OK to upload via unstable, >>> and with urgency high? I have the package built and await an OK for >>> upload. >> Please upload. > > The previous version of the package had debian version 1.0.39 (a debian > native version number, which isn't appropriate for this package but we > can't fix what previous versions were). > > The hppa binNMU was 1.0.39+b1. > > Wookey uploaded 1.0.39-1, which has built for all architectures > including hppa, but the hppa upload was rejected because 1.0.39-1 is a > *lower* version than 1.0.39+b1 by the ordering dpkg uses - this outputs > `yes': > > dpkg --compare-versions 1.0.39b1 '>>' 1.0.39-1 && echo yes 1.0.39+b1 ofcourse... > The options I can see are: > > * Force 1.0.39-1 in for hppa somehow. I doubt there are any hppa users > of survex who have installed the version currently in unstable (since > nobody complained that survex-aven was uninstallable for over 3 > months; also it's a fairly specialised application). Even so this > seems a bit brute force. Isn't going to work... > * Reupload the package as something like: 1.0.39debian-1 Nothing debian specific, so not preferred. > * Reupload the package with an epoch: 1:1.0.39-1 Not preferred. > * Reupload the package as something like 1.0.39.1-1 (or 1.0.39.1 and fix > the package to be non-native later when we aren't trying to release > etch). I am the upstream for survex, so I can ensure there's never an > upstream release called 1.0.39.1. What about 1.0.39+upstream-1 or something similar? Cheers Luk -- Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature