On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 22:57 +0100, Jeffrey Ratcliffe wrote: > Hi Adam, > > On 6 March 2011 00:18, Adam D. Barratt <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote: > > - Testing and unstable have tesseract 2.04-2.1, so the package for > > stable would need to have a lower version than that. I'd suggest 2.04-2 > > +squeeze1, which is conventional. > > Sure. This will be my first contribution directly to stable or > oldstable, as I am sure you can tell. I've updated the oldstable > package to also conform.
Thanks. > There was no mention of the convention in the Developers' > Reference[1]. Is this worth a bug report? I'm planning on working on the wording in the DevRef relating to stable uploads soon anyway, to ensure it matches current practice; I'll bear it mind. The reasoning behind using + is to ensure that the newly uploaded version is higher than any binNMUs which may exist in stable (i.e. 2.04-2squeeze1 < 2.0.4-2+b1). It also saves us having to check whether there was ever a 2.03-3 in the archive previously. > > - It would be nice if the reasoning for the quilt build-dep bump was > > mentioned. My suspicion is that this is due to the use of "dh > > --with-quilt" triggering a lintian warning but this isn't really > > necessary for stable as the relevant quilt version is already included > > there (and the warning has thus been dropped by the version of lintian > > in experimental). > > I've dropped it, assuming you are correct, and asked Jakub Wilk, who > prepared the original NMU, to confirm. Okay, thanks. For the record, I'd be happy with the squeeze upload either as is or with the quilt bump + more expansive changelog entry; the main issue with the original was the lack of explanation. > >> Would you like separate bugs to be opened for each distribution? At > >> the moment, the same sid/wheezy bug is quoted/closed. > > > > That's fine (and the right way to do it). > > Sorry, but your answer is ambigious. Would you like the extra two bugs > opened (and closed)? Sorry, "that" referred to the current situation. There's no need to open more than one bug to track a particular issue in a given package; the BTS is more than capable of tracking which versions of a package (and by extension which suites) the bug applies to assuming it has supplied with the correct version information in terms of fixed / found versions. #612032 was already corrected tagged for the stable version (albeit as a side-effect of it being the unstable version at the time the bug was reported); I've just sent the relevant control@ command to mark the oldstable version as affected. > I would also suggest that the Developers' Reference could be improved > to confirm this, one way or the other. I don't think this is an issue specific to stable; it's a general feature of BTS version tracking so if further documentation is needed it should be outside of any stable update discussion. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1299449376.25972.13816.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org