On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > How about numbering for native packages? People seem to be > disagreeing alot on how to do that:
I won't touch that one. IMHO people can number diff-less packages whichever way they want to. > Should I add a debian reversion or not? Say the version is > 1.2, and I do an NMU, would I call it: IMHO, we should never change a diff-less package to a diff-based one in an NMU (unless the NMU is for the explict objective of doing just that...), the maintainer won't like it. So tack the usual NMU/binary NMU .NMU and .NMU.BINNMU suffixes to the end, no dashes. > - 1.2.0.1 > - 1.2.1 Yes, these ones are fine, AFAIK. > If I number it 1.2-0.1, it would mean it's no longer a native > package. Does that mean I should split it in an .orig.tar.gz and > a diff? You'd have to. So don't do it. > What about binNMU's for those packages? I have no experience trying to bin-NMU a diff-less package, I don't know how well it works. I will wait for someone with more knowledge to step in. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
