On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 02:42:54PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Later, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The primary aim of this change was to address the fact that there was no
> > consistent numbering scheme that satisfies the constraint
> > binNMU < security NMU < source NMU.
> The problems with t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How did bin-NMU numbers work for the old numbering scheme on native
> packages?
In a Complicated Way. Essentially, the debian revision and NMU revision were
filled in with 0s (which were, accordingly, not supposed to be used in normal
version numbers).
>What prohibit
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:54:00PM -0600, Ken Bloom wrote:
> > There's also no documentation of this numbering scheme: does it differ when
> > applied to a {native, non-native} package? A {maintainer upload, NMU}?
> > So actually I can't write a fix, period.
> How did bin-NMU numbers work for t
Where did the rest of this discussion come from? I can't find it here on
debian-devel, but I assume it has something to the patch that I posted
to debian-devel, and later to debian-dpkg at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2006/01/msg00045.html
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
>
4 matches
Mail list logo
