On 15 February 2011 01:27, Daniel Hollocher <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the tips folks. I'm not sure how much changing the version is an > option for me. > >> >> It's not messed up, but as others have said you can't reuse that version. >> >> If you just got it slightly wrong, increment the number and try again. >> For example if you accidentally uploaded 2.2 as 2.3-1ubuntu1, and you >> now want to upload the real 2.3, just say 2.3-1ubuntu-2. If you used >> a number very far in the future and the real series will never pass >> that, you need to use an epoch as Umang suggested. >> >> If you need help say more about your particular case. > > > I'm trying to maintain a patch against the kernel, and I'm trying to script > most of the re-packaging. I made some mistakes and I ended up uploading a > maverick versioned meta-linux to the lucid series. So 2.6.35 instead of > 2.6.32, ie, for the life of lucid. I believe I have the issue fixed, so it > shouldn't be a problem in the future. But it is still good to know that I > have to be careful. > I'm using a testing ppa, soo, I think worse comes to worse, I think I can > just create a new testing ppa. And regarding changing the epoch, I suspect > that just making a new ppa makes more sense and is less risky. > Let me know if there is anything wrong with my approach.
I think this is a reasonable approach, assuming you don't have so many people following the ppa that changing urls will be a problem. You might even get away with deleting and then re-creating the ppa. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-users Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-users More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
