On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 05:29:27PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Oh. Come on. I think Peter is allowed to do a binary-only NMU of his
> own package, like everybody else :-)
>
> This numbering scheme and its purpose is documented in the Developer's
> Reference. Being the rationale the same (i.e. to
Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 10:31:06AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > For instance, ``foo_1.3-1'' would be numbered ``foo_1.3-1.0.1''.
> > > No new .diff.gz is uploaded.
> >
> > But then 1.0.1 is a new version, and
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 10:31:06AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > > The changelog will not appear in all the binary packages produced
> > > >
On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 10:31:06AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > The changelog will not appear in all the binary packages produced
> > > since I won't be uploading a new diff.gz to propagate a
On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 10:31:06AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > If it's a new binary version, it should have source to go with it.
> > And you can't reupload the binary package without a new version number.
> No, it's a recompile-only of the source package.
A rec
On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 10:31:06AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > The changelog will not appear in all the binary packages produced
> > > since I won't be uploading a new diff.gz to propagate
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > The changelog will not appear in all the binary packages produced
> > since I won't be uploading a new diff.gz to propagate a new
> > changelog.
>
> If it's a new binary version, it should have source
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> The changelog will not appear in all the binary packages produced
> since I won't be uploading a new diff.gz to propagate a new
> changelog.
If it's a new binary version, it should have source to go with it.
And you can't reuploa
Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 11:07:39AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:56:09AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > > If not, I presume that I remove the changelog entry after the new
> > > > deb is build (so that it doesn
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 11:07:39AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:56:09AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > > If not, I presume that I remove the changelog entry after the new
> > > deb is build (so that it doesn't appear in subsequent uploads
Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:56:09AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> > The only way that I know is editing the debian/changelog such
> > that dpkg-buildpakage makes the proper version number package and
> > generates a proper changes file.
>
> That's about it. Such rebuil
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 09:56:09AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> The only way that I know is editing the debian/changelog such
> that dpkg-buildpakage makes the proper version number package and
> generates a proper changes file.
That's about it. Such rebuilds are quite common.
> If not, I
12 matches
Mail list logo
