Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> writes: > On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 11:39:01 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> writes:
>>> I've actually changed my mind over this one since seconding #542288, >>> which I should probably unsecond. I think this is broken, and an NMU >>> of a native packages should instead convert the packages to non-native >>> and then use the normal non-native NMU versioning. See >>> <https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/02/msg00230.html> and the >>> surrounding sub-thread starting at >>> <https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/01/msg00650.html> for my >>> rationale. >> I'd kind of like to keep the discussion of whether to convert native >> packages to non-native when doing NMUs separate from the version >> numbering convention if we can, since the latter is just a way of >> documenting what people are actually doing currently (whether they >> should do so or not). > Fair enough. Consider my informal "unseconding" rescinded then. :) Also > given that we already have such packages in the archive, even if we end > up deciding to change the practice it might still be good to document > it for historical reasons? > I can file a separate bug report if you want? Or would you prefer > discussion to take place beforehand? I think a separate bug is fine -- we can start the discussion that way, in the bug. I think there was some previous debian-devel discussion of this, but I don't think it reached any conclusion. Thanks! -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
