n-g-d post-squeeze plans
rra at debian.org
Tue Feb 22 19:51:04 UTC 2011
Andreas Beckmann <debian at abeckmann.de> writes:
> What's the best way of numbering the the squeeze-updates version? I'd
> prefer avoiding to add something like ~squeeze, +squeeze or the like in
> order to not make the version number of the prebuilt modules even more
> complicated. The number space after 195.36.31-6 (i.e. 195.36.31-6 ..
> 195.36.31-99999) is free and won't be needed by unstable. So we
> shouldn't destroy the possibility to use this for squeeze by doing some
> imprudent upload of 195.36.31-7 to unstable. Unless it would be allowed
> to upload 195.36.31-7 to unstable and 195.36.31-8 to
> squeeze-proposed-updates afterwards.
Oh, hm. I should have read through this before I, er, did an imprudent
upload of 195.36.31-7 to unstable. I did read this message a couple of
times before uploading, but for some reason didn't internalize what it
meant. Sorry about that. :/
The proposed naming scheme was supposed to be to add +deb60+1 to the
version number, although that's just as complicated. Does anything break
with a +squeeze1 version number, or does it just look really ugly?
Russ Allbery (rra at debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
More information about the pkg-nvidia-devel