[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       debian-devel
Subject:    Re: Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped
From:       Ian Jackson <ijackson () chiark ! greenend ! org ! uk>
Date:       2018-04-09 13:29:11
Message-ID: 23243.27303.96517.159264 () chiark ! greenend ! org ! uk
[Download RAW message or body]

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 <ijackson@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.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]