Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 05:44:52PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>> We could do away with the concept of NMUs of native software, and do >> away with this uncertanty, ambiguity, bugginess, etc. Simply say that >> when a NMU of a native package is done, the package stops being native >> in Debian (until the next maintainer upload, presumably). So the NMU >> adds "-0.1" to the version number, like any NMU. The .orig.tar.gz from >> the maintainer's last release is kept in the archive, with a .diff.gz >> added that conveniently contains only the NMU's changes. Since it's not >> a native package, it will be correct for the changelog to be installed >> as changelog.Debian.gz, and correct for the version number to contain a >> dash. > I'm in total agreement with this. I was staying out of this thread > because I've been one of the proponents of using -0.x for NMUs of native > packages in spite of the inconsistency with Policy, and I wasn't sure > that this reasoning wasn't just a post-hoc rationalization on my part. > Since you've come to the same conclusion, I suppose it isn't. :) It sounds great to me too. Currently, I'm not sure Policy talks about NMUs at all. Should we add a section somewhere that discusses them and goes over these issues? -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
