On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 05:48:40PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Wed, 07 Jul 2010, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 11:59:51AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > > I think there's some confusion here; [debian/changelog] documents changes > > > to the source package, and as such, should always have the source > > > version listed. [Binnmus have a changelog revision, but this is > > > technically a violation, as their source version is not Y+bNN, but Y.]
> > I think this technical violation is a bug in policy, not in binNMU > > practices. > I'd be fine with a specific exception for binNMUs, but not a more > general one, as the ability to reconstruct a version graph based on > the source version entries in debian/changelog is fairly important for > the BTS. [It's of less importance now that dak exports that to the > BTS, but it is still how we generated it all in the first place.] Oh, yes, definitely. I can't see any reason for a package that's not a binNMU to ever have extra revisions in their changelog that don't correspond to source revisions. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
