Hi,
Watching from the side lines,
KatolaZ writes:
> 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.
I agree with you as well but was wondering what would happen if such a
directly packaged package appeared in Debian. Probably unlikely to the
extreme for eudev, but what about other packages that Devuan packaged
first?
How would the existence of such packages affect the way Devuan now
merges the Debian packages into its own package repositories?
Just wondering,
--
Olaf Meeuwissen, LPIC-2 FSF Associate Member since 2004-01-27
GnuPG key: F84A2DD9/B3C0 2F47 EA19 64F4 9F13 F43E B8A4 A88A F84A 2DD9
Support Free Software https://my.fsf.org/donate
Join the Free Software Foundation https://my.fsf.org/join
::
Re: [devuan-dev] New patches for eu…
