On Tue, 2019-08-20 at 22:22 +0100, Samuel Henrique wrote: > Hello Adam, > > > It certainly can't be 1.3.2-1+deb10u1, as that version number is > > higher > > than the package in unstable. Either one would need to go with > > 1.3.1- > > 2+deb10u1 with just the bug fix applied, or 1.3.2-1~deb10u1 with a > > "backports-style" changelog containing both 1.3.2-1 and then the > > stable > > update. In either case we would need a debdiff that reflects the > > chosen > > approach. > > > > One thing that will need to be fixed in unstable first either way: > > > > Not built on buildd: arch all binaries uploaded by samueloph > > > > As per the d-d-a announcement, that will need a new source upload > > to > > unstable to resolve, as arch:all can't be usefully binNMUed. > > I just uploaded 1.3.3-1 (source-only) to unstable, can I just wait > until it migrates to testing and then go with "1.3.2-1+deb10u1" ? > If so, I will remove the "moreinfo" tag when it the package migrates > to Testing (in 2 days) and we can use the latest debdiff on this > thread.
That doesn't really make sense as a version here, as it's not a stable update on top of 1.3.2-1; stable only has 1.3.1-2. If you really want to go with the complete version rather than just the specific fix, then either 1.3.2-1~deb10u1 - and therefore with the original 1.3.2-1 changelog with a "backports style" entry on top - or 1.3.2-0+deb10u1. Regards, Adam
