"Francesco P. Lovergine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:06:33PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 11:42:10AM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 10:32:42AM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote: >>>> So I go to try and prepare a QA upload of guile-oops to orphan it properly, >>>> and it's currently a native package. I just converted visualos to a >>>> non-native package, so I figure I'll have a go with guile-oops. >>>> >>>> The bloody thing's got a tarball inside its source tarball. What should I >>>> do >>>> in this case? Leave it as a native package? Run away? >>> You have to restart debian version by -1. >> Why? I really don't see why this should be necessary. > I saw currente release in sid is 1.0.2-2.3, so the choice is > among 1.0.3-1 or 1:1.0.2-1, katie will not accept a new .orig file for a non > -1 > release, AFAIK.
katie accepts new tarballs for all debian revisions (use the -sa switch
for dpkg-genchanges to get a fitting .changes file). As the thing was
packaged natively, there is no other guile-oops_1.0.2.orig.tar.gz in
archive, so i don't see a problem there.
Marc
--
$_=')(hBCdzVnS})3..0}_$;//::niam/s~=)]3[))_$(rellac(=_$({pam(esrever })e$.)4/3*
)e$(htgnel+23(rhc,"u"(kcapnu ,""nioj ;|_- |/+9-0z-aZ-A|rt~=e$;_$=e${pam tnirp{y
V2ajFGabus} yV2ajFGa&{gwmclBHIbus}gwmclBHI&{yVGa09mbbus}yVGa09mb&{hBCdzVnSbus';
s/\n//g;s/bus/\nbus/g;eval scalar reverse # <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpl8DZnWXvnK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
