Christian T. Steigies writes ("Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped"): > On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 08:41:00PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > [...] So what I'd advise *now* would be to increase the revision > > to 12 and carry on from there. > > This has been addressed by policy now, does you recommendation still hold?
I see no relevant difference between the views expressed by Simon in his email, and the statement now codified in policy. I agree with the policy and IMO Simon's recommendations are good. > I understand the explanation for source and binary package, but I wonder if > I have the right interpretation for the upstream source code: > > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#uniqueness-of-version-numbers > 3.2.2. Uniqueness of version numbers > ... > Additionally, for non-native packages, the upstream version must not be > reused for different upstream source code, so that for each source package > name and upstream version number there exists exactly one original source > archive contents (see Files). > > Since the intial upload was as native package, and the latest as non-native, > this does not apply to moon-buggy and I can upload with revision 12 as you > suggested? I think this is correct, yes. Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.