On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 05:17:49PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:51:36PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > I'd rather see the binNMU version in the installed_version field - after > > > all, for that architecture, that is the version that is installed. When > > > filing a binNMU it is confusing to first see it go from 1.0-1 > > > (Installed) to 1.0-1+b1 (Needs-Build) to 1.0-1+b1 (Built) to 1.0-1 > > > (Installed). I'd expect it to stay at 1.0-1+b1 (Installed), if you know > > > what I mean. > > Eh, I need to translate myself I assume: > > "I would tend to put the version number including the binary epoch > > (e.g. 1.2.3+b1) in all fields, ...". > I'm not sure how you'll get that to work, because you wouldn't > know what the source version is anymore? What we see in that version field is a faked version anyway. It's not about the binary version, it's either source version or concat(source version, '+b', binNMU version). Kind regards, Philipp Kern -- .''`. Philipp Kern Debian Developer : :' : http://philkern.de Stable Release Manager `. `' xmpp:phil@0x539.de Wanna-Build Admin `- finger pkern/key@db.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature