On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 12:28:47PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> Olly Betts wrote:
> > The hppa binNMU was 1.0.39+b1.
> >
> > Wookey uploaded 1.0.39-1, which has built for all architectures
> > including hppa, but the hppa upload was rejected because 1.0.39-1 is a
> > *lower* version than 1.0.39+b1 by the ordering dpkg uses - this outputs
> > `yes':
> >
> > dpkg --compare-versions 1.0.39b1 '>>' 1.0.39-1 && echo yes
>
> 1.0.39+b1 ofcourse...
Of course - not sure where I lost the "+". Anyway, the comparison gives
the same result for "1.0.39+b1".
> > * Reupload the package as something like: 1.0.39debian-1
>
> Nothing debian specific, so not preferred.
I guess you must mean "nothing debian specific in the upstream release",
so putting "debian" in the upstream version doesn't make sense?
If not you've lost me, as the changes here are entirely debian-specific
(a fix for a problem caused by the debian packaging not being
binNMU-safe combined with the package previously being debian native).
None of the upstream code has been modified (all the changes over 1.0.39
are in the debian subdirectory and there's no debian/patch).
> > * Reupload the package as something like 1.0.39.1-1 (or 1.0.39.1 and fix
> > the package to be non-native later when we aren't trying to release
> > etch). I am the upstream for survex, so I can ensure there's never an
> > upstream release called 1.0.39.1.
>
> What about 1.0.39+upstream-1 or something similar?
Well, there's nothing upstream specific here either! But it does the
job so I'm happy to go with it, assuming Wookey (cc:-ed) is.
Cheers,
Olly
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
