On Sun, 2017-12-03 at 17:42 +0000, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 06:39:03PM +0100, Jaromil wrote:
> > On Sun, 03 Dec 2017, Daniel Reurich wrote:
> >
> > >    Eudev being a directly packaged should have a version of <upstream
> > >    version>-<build version> and not have an additional +<devuanX.Y> which
> > > is
> > >    currently only used for our modified rebuilt version of debian
> > > packages.
> > >    So the correct version should be 3.2.2-9 in this case.
> > >
> > >    For updates, we can add +<suite version>u<N>, and backports +bpoN, and
> > >    security can have +<suite or suiteversion>securityN
> > >
> > >    In this way we follow the same convention as debian uses, and provide a
> > >    clear indicator where we override a debian package.
> > >
> > >    Of course this is all up for discussion, but I suggest until we can
> > > decide
> > >    on and document a good reason to break with this convention we should
> > > do
> > >    so.
> >
> > I tend to agree with Daniel here, since this package is not forked
> > from Debian we don't need to add +devuan. Lets hear more opinions.
> >
>
> I agree with Dan and Jaromil. If something is not forked from Debian,
> we don't need to use the +devuanX.Y convention, IMHO.

The idea with naming the package 3.2.2-8+devuan2 was to indicate that it is a
package aimed for ASCII. Note, I did not add an Y in the naming. Maybe a simpler
naming would be 3.2.2-8+d2?

In my opinion it is nice to know which distribution a package is aimed for.
However, I'll do the renaming as we decide on.

What about the native package udev? Currently it is 3.2.2+devuan2.10. Note that
Debian don't like a -<version> added to a native package.