On 2018-12-03 15:25:29, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> On 2018-12-03 14:53, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 02:37:03PM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>>> > > This would need to be versioned as 2.2.3+deb9u1.
>>> > But it's exactly the 2.2.4 release published to unstable - why the
>>> > different version number?
>>> (It's not "exactly the same" - the stretch upload will be built in a
>>> stretch
>>> chroot, so may well end up with different dependencies. At the very
>>> least,
>>> it needs a d/changelog entry detailing that it was uploaded to stable,
>>> which
>>> makes it different from the unstable upload.)
>>
>> so why not 2.2.4~deb9u1 then?
>
> That would be fine also, assuming the stable upload includes all of the
> changes from the unstable upload of 2.2.4.
Okay, then I'll pick that, it seems more reasonable than 2.2.3+something
as it's not 2.2.3.
> I read Antoine's original message as specifically trying to use the
> exact version string "2.2.4"; apologies if that was not the intent.
Correct, I still don't quite see why we can't just reuse that, but it
seems to be there are technical reasons keeping this from happening.
So I'll just upload 2.2.4~deb9u1 to stable now?
a.
--
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity, but don't rule out malice.
- Albert Einstein
