* Joachim Breitner ([email protected]) [100611 22:23]: > Hi, > > Am Freitag, den 11.06.2010, 21:30 +0200 schrieb Andreas Barth: > > * Joachim Breitner ([email protected]) [100611 20:06]: > > > Am Freitag, den 11.06.2010, 18:25 +0200 schrieb Andreas Barth: > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > from a „user“ POV, I’m all for it. I find the current state quite > > > confusing. > > > > I would tend to put the proper version number in all fields, and the > > binnmu_* only to exist until the package reaches the installed state. > > What do you think? > > I’d rather see the binNMU version in the installed_version field – after > all, for that architecture, that is the version that is installed. When > filing a binNMU it is confusing to first see it go from 1.0-1 > (Installed) to 1.0-1+b1 (Needs-Build) to 1.0-1+b1 (Built) to 1.0-1 > (Installed). I’d expect it to stay at 1.0-1+b1 (Installed), if you know > what I mean.
Eh, I need to translate myself I assume: "I would tend to put the version number including the binary epoch (e.g. 1.2.3+b1) in all fields, ...". Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
