On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:55:26 -0600 Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On Sunday 17 February 2008 17:22, Raphael Geissert wrote: >>> >>> If Debian's 0.11+1-1 is upstream's 0.11 why not just strip the '+1' using >>> dversionmangle? >>> That's in my POV the bug. >>> >> I think rewriting watch files for one time events is a mistake. If this >> were >> a permanent feature of the version numbering I would agree. > >The thing is, when you make such kind of uploads all you have to make sure >is that uscan still says your package is up to date. > >> I suppose the >> easiest solution for me to not be bothered about this would be to remove >> the watch file on the next upload. > >You won't be bothered if you also maintain the watch file. >And as I said in my response to Raphael Hertzog I could skip those where the >Debian version has something like +svn, +cvs, -pre, and also probably skip >those such as yours: +n.
Fair enough. >But those I really don't want to exclude are the ones >having 'dsfg', 'ds', 'debian', or ones whose watch file really reports an >older version (e.g. in Debian: 2.3.1, upstream: 2.0.1). > There are also packages where an upstream release is missing entirely. This sounds more reasonable to me, but I think you should publish a revised list and give maintainers a chance to respond. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
