Le Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 05:40:07PM -0400, Michael Gilbert a écrit : > > > > I believe it should also document the N.N standard for > > > NMUs of non-native packages, since people don't seem inclined to change to > > > +nmu and there's probably no reason to do so. > > I suppose this isn't a compelling argument, but it's just rather > strange that two different schemes/standards are in play here. As a > temporary transition, the wording could say non-native nmus can be > versioned with either +nmun or n.n with +nmun favored as that will > become the standard in the future.
Hello Michael and everybody, I am not opposed to this. Are there other opinions on the matter ? If yes, I can propose a revised patch. Otherwise, I think that I will tag this bug ‘patch‘ and call for seconds with the current wording, because even if there is consensus that +nmun for non-native packages would be better in the future, I am not sure if parsers for version numbers that work with n.n are able to detect +nmun correctly… Or how about a footnote to suggest to people writing parsers that they make sure they are compatible with the current practice, n.n, plus with +nmun just in case of a future standardisation ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
