On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 02:38:52PM +0000, Wookey wrote: > On 2006-12-26 17:44 +0000, Olly Betts wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 12:28:47PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> > > 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. > The +ver syntax is reserved for binNMU's - right? So this suggestion > is to build an hppa version from the new sources and compatible with > them then upload it with 1.0.39+b2 (or +upstream-1) which will sort > higher than the exsiting one and become installable? > Or am I misunderstanding and the +ver syntax can be used for a > sourceful upload too? The version numbers reserved for binNMUs are +b<num> in the Debian revision (or, if it's a native package, with the effect seen above :/). It's expected that + will also be used eventually for security NMUs. You can use a + however you want to in an upstream version number. > I can do that, although I think my debian login has been broken since > the great compromise of 2004 (despite several ttempts to fix it). This > provides an incentive to finally sort it out (in order to log on to an > hppa build box). Hmm, not that having access to hppa would have mattered here, the nature of the problem required a sourceful upload. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
