On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 01:38:04PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Bart Martens wrote:
> > Policy does not explicitly state that the presence/absence of a > > "debian_revision" or that the presence/absence of hyphen(s) "-" indicate > > whether or not the package is a "native Debian package". > > <debian_revision> > > It is optional; if it isn't present then the <upstream_version> > may not contain a hyphen. This format represents the case where > a piece of software was written specifically to be turned into a > Debian package, and so there is only one "debianisation" of it > and therefore no revision indication is required. > > This strongly implies that debian native packages don't use debian_revision. That's why it is in the normal case. > > > I don't know why the > > > developers reference choses to ignore that. Because it may be more important to be able to identify an NMU from the version number than to be able to identify a native package from the version number... > > Policy and developer's reference do not contradict explicitly on the > > version numbering of an NMU of a native package. > > The developer's reference chose to ignore or change a longstanding practice > of never using debian revision numbers in native packages. Changing this > breaks software that has relied on this practice for ten or more years. > Not just debhelper, but debstd and cdbs, and who knows what else. How does it break them? Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
