On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 02:12 -0600, dann frazier wrote: > I looked into doing a binNMU of ssh to workaround this problem, but the > current versioning scheme ssh uses makes this problematic: > > <dannf> how does binNMU versionin work w/ something like 1.2.3-4.sarge.5 ? > <vorlon> if you number it as 1.2.3-4.sarge.5, it will already look like a > binNMU > <dannf> the developer's guide leads me to believe it should be sarge.6 - but > that seems wrong > <vorlon> yep. > <vorlon> preferably, you would use 1.2.3-4sarge5 instead > <dannf> well shit - upstream's next release will likely be the same, i don't > want my arch to have a different version > <vorlon> (and then 1.2.3-4sarge5.0.1, 1.2.3-4sarge5.1) > * dannf was wanting to binNMU ssh for #309274 > <dannf> s/upstream/the maintainer/ > <vorlon> heh. doh. > > Christoph - would you permit me to "have" sarge.5 for a binNMU?
Argh, must be late. Of course, I meant to request this from the _ssh_ maintainer (cc'd) -- dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
