Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> writes: > On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 19:31:10 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think that the best long-term way to handle binNMUs may be to move >> the build number into a different piece of package metadata from the >> version. So a binNMU of a package with version 1.4-1 would still have >> version 1.4-1 but would have a build number of 2 instead of 1. I think >> this would be way cleaner in the long run, and not just for multiarch. > That means then we cannot state a relationship based on the binNMU > version. And while that might be desirable most of the times, it makes > it impossible when it might be desirable. Good point. > Without considering this deeper, it also reminds me of when Revision was > a distinct field. In any case how to handle binNMUs is something that > should be carefully considered and not be rushed out now, just because > suddently they cannot be used... I agree with this sentiment. Personally, I'm fine with moving forward with a multiarch approach that doesn't allow for binNMUs on a subset of arches as the first cut, and then go back and figure out what we're doing with binNMUs later. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87boohxpa8....@windlord.stanford.edu