Re: Bug#440638 closed by Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com> (Bug#440638: fixed in bos 1.1.dfsg-0.1)
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 02:09:09PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 12:43:51PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> >
> >>>I suppose this will have to be uploaded to stable-proposed-uploads as
> >>>well, but what version number? etch and sid have the same upstream
> >>>version, so how do we avoid collisions?
> >
> >>Maybe I'm missing something here, but what's wrong with the usual
> >>appending of "etch1" to the existing version number, i.e. 1.1-3etch1?
> >
> >That in this specific case, the fix involves repacking the upstream sources
> >to remove non-free contents, and the version number used in unstable has a
> >Debian part of -0.1.
> >
> >I think 1.1.dfsg-3.1 in unstable would have been better; that would allow
> >use of 1.1-3+etch1 in stable.
>
> Any reason why the maintainer is not at least Cc-ed in this discussion?
No, just oversight (sorry David).
> The easiest way is probably to have an upload of the new upstream
> version (with maintainer's consent) and have 1.1.dfsg-1 or similar for
> stable.
It seems that new upstream is sufficiently different that it deserved an ITP
of its own: #437382
I would suggest getting the infringing files removed from stable without
worrying about update path. When boswars enters sid, it will have to address
upgrade path again anyway, so it can be dealt with at that point.
--
Robert Millan
<GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
<DRM> What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on /.)
Reply to: