On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 09:26:50AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > "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. >
Yep, I missed the -sa feature... -- Francesco P. Lovergine
