On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 1999 at 10:31:06AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 12:17:53PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > > > The changelog will not appear in all the binary packages produced > > > > since I won't be uploading a new diff.gz to propagate a new > > > > changelog. > > > > > > If it's a new binary version, it should have source to go with it. > > > And you can't reupload the binary package without a new version number. > > > > No, it's a recompile-only of the source package. > > > > For instance, ``foo_1.3-1'' would be numbered ``foo_1.3-1.0.1''. > > No new .diff.gz is uploaded. > > But then 1.0.1 is a new version, and should have .dsc and .diff.gz to > go with it.
Oh. Come on. I think Peter is allowed to do a binary-only NMU of his own package, like everybody else :-) This numbering scheme and its purpose is documented in the Developer's Reference. Being the rationale the same (i.e. to not force a recompile on every arch), I don't see a good reason why others are allowed to do this when doing a binary-only NMU and Peter should not be. Thanks. -- "ed67fcfd485c2343879df919cda9a63f" (a truly random sig)
