On Wed, Oct 06, 2010, Michael Hope wrote: > Hmm. There's a conflict there. One requirement is to be 'traceable > back to the upstream version'. If we pick up random patches then that > is hard and calling it ltrace-linaro makes sense. However, we also > want later upstream ltrace release to automatically obsolete ours.
That's fair; I guess changing just the upstream version to carry linaro, e.g. 0.5.3+linaro1, would work. It might be easier to just drop a patch at the packaging level and not worry about releasing a tarball, but I certainly imagine how you came to rolling a tarball as that's more elegant to release than a patch > If we release a 'ltrace-linaro', which turns into the Ubuntu package > 'ltrace-linaro', can it be superseded by a later 'ltrace' release? Well it would be more work than the version trick above Note however that you don't really know whether the next ltrace will have the patch or not, or a different patch. It's also hard to make sure you don't supersede an upstream version you didn't intend to supersede, or vice-versa: upstream could pick any next version number they like, and it might be earlier or later than yours. -- Loïc Minier _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
