* David Prévot <taf...@debian.org> [2013-03-21 17:14:52 CET]: > Hi, > > Le 21/03/2013 11:57, Thomas Goirand a écrit : > > > Invoking dch --bpo in Debian Wheezy produces: > > devscripts (2.12.6~bpo60+1) squeeze-backports; urgency=low > > > > instead of writing: > > devscripts (2.12.6~bpo70+1) wheezy-backports; urgency=low > > Maybe even 2.12.6~bpo7+1 (s/70/7/) to follow the current RT and security > trend.
Erm, please no, like russ pointed out already, that would destroy the sorting order. Also, I'm not 100% convinced that wheezy should ship with dch doing backports to wheezy. This somehow doesn't make that much sense to me. Having dch in unstable (and then jessie) produce wheezy-backports and ~bpo70 as default is fine and correct, but having a wheezy environment produce that I'm not totally convinced. I rather expect developers to use either testing or unstable for their developing environment and thus it is enough to have the next release version of dch/devscripts produce wheezy-backports. Just my 0.02 EUR, Rhonda -- Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los | Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los | Wir sind Helden Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
