-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 06:45:32PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> If I number it 1.2-0.1, it would mean it's no longer a native
> package. Does that mean I should split it in an .orig.tar.gz and
> a diff?
On the contrary; Policy does not say that a nati
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> How about numbering for native packages? People seem to be
> disagreeing alot on how to do that:
I won't touch that one. IMHO people can number diff-less packages whichever
way they want to.
> Should I add a debian reversion or not? Say the version is
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 01:01:22AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>
> IMHO, Yes. IMHO you should also add that you are only to use numbers without
> zero padding (not that the tools will break if you pad, AFAIK, but...), that
> they must increase monotonically, that NMUs start with 1 an
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 01:01:22AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Tue, 01 Nov 2005, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > > I was surprised to discover that the standard rules for Debian
> > > revision numbers
> > > (maintainer revisions contain n
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 336342 Clarify permitted epoch values
Bug#336342: Clarify permitted epoch values and numeric versions
Changed Bug title.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(ad
retitle 336342 Clarify permitted epoch values
thanks
* Florian Weimer:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.6.2.1
> Severity: normal
>
> In section 5.6.12, the permitted epoch values are not specified
> precisely. Large epochs tend to cause problems for some tools, for
> example dpkg, whose beh
6 matches
Mail list logo
