Hi,
quid...@poivron.org wrote (08 Jun 2012 10:46:14 GMT) :
>>> + * debian/control: more precise description of the packages, their
>>> purposes
>>> + and features. Add a statement about the required kernel version.
>>
>> I doubt this statement is in debian/control.
[...]
> The first paragraph of the description and the requirement, which are
> common to all binary packages, are included with ${Description} and
> ${Requirement}, defined in debian/substvars. Not good ?
Ooops, I missed it, sorry. This comment of mine shall be
ignored, then.
> OK, what is the best way, now ?
> 1. Fix typos and other errors you mention above, modify the existing
> changelog entry and keep the version number (0.2) ?
I'd rather not see differing code or packaging called the same.
> In that case, is it possible to put the 'new' version to
> mentors.debian.org and overwrite the previous one ?
No idea.
> 2. Fix typos and other things, add a new changelog entry and increment
> the version number (0.2.1) ?
Yes.
> In that case, how to deal with the irrelevant or useless
> informations of the actual changelog ?
Forget it :)
> 3. ?
Another possibility would be to move to non-native and increment the
Debian revision number only. In the present case, we would move from
0.2-1 to 0.2-2, which would reflect the actual changes quite better.
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
