On 2012-03-15 18:47, Russ Allbery wrote: > Jakub Wilk <[email protected]> writes: >> * Russ Allbery <[email protected]>, 2012-03-11, 15:29: > >>> Are we sure that no one is going to do a manual binNMU and not know the >>> new versioning system? We still do get occasional manual binNMUs. > >> I estimate that the number of people who still remember the old style and >> haven't heard of the new style, and feel adventurous to upload binNMUs >> built by hand is about 0. > > Yeah, you're probably right. > >> Anyway, I believe such a binNMU would be rejected by dak (because it >> couldn't find source for such version). > > If that's the case, then I'm definitely fine with dropping this check. > > I think there's a pending patch for Policy that was most of the way > through the process that would document our version number conventions > more completely. I should dig that up. >
Hi, I asked in #d-ftp: """ 14:31 < nthykier> Hey, how would dak handle an "old-style" binNMU versioning (context #663516#31 and #663516#36) 14:35 * DktrKranz looks at the "old-style" versioning 14:37 < DktrKranz> at a first sight, it should be a reject for missing source, but lemme check. 14:37 < Ganneff> reject 14:38 < Ganneff> non matching regex [...] 14:39 < Ganneff> (and through that, missing source, si) """ So I will remove the tag. ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
