On Thu, 2019-08-29 at 22:45 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Thu, 2019-08-29 at 23:20 +0200, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > > Ok, this is embarrasing: after discussing that Debian version regex > > and > > the version scheme for proposed-updates, I failed to see that the > > regex > > was wrong (see https://bugs.debian.org/935938). Its fixed now in > > 25.0.0+11+deb10u1. And hopefully I got the version right. > > No, that version is higher than unstable. > > I'm a little confused by what you've uploaded now: > > android-sdk-meta | 25.0.0+10 | stable | source > android-sdk-meta | 25.0.0+11~deb10u1 | proposed-updates | source > android-sdk-meta | 25.0.0+11~deb10u2 | stable-new | source > android-sdk-meta | 25.0.0+11 | testing | source > android-sdk-meta | 25.0.0+11 | unstable | source > android-sdk-meta | 25.0.0+11+deb10u1 | stable-new | source > > ~deb10u1 is the source I originally accepted, which generated the > duplicate binary package versions. What's ~deb10u2?
OK, I've now seen the diffs, and the -12 upload to unstable. That answers some of my questions, but... +android-sdk-meta (25.0.0+11+deb10u1) buster; urgency=medium + + * fix version: this adds on top of package from sid + + -- Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@eds.org> Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:05:54 +0200 + +android-sdk-meta (25.0.0+11~deb10u2) buster; urgency=medium That version would be correct iff the remainder of the changelog was from sid. Will 25.0.0+11~deb10u2 build correctly-versioned binary packages if I accept that one? I noticed that +12 that just hit sid has * Revert "remove broken screenshot2 symlink (Closes: #924175) although I can't see why from looking at the bug report. That change was also included in the p-u uploads - should it be reverted there? Regards, Adam
