Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
Shouldn't the package be named 2.0.3-x where the x is a package version. This would allow you to include post 2.0.3 bug fixes. I think to have a package named 2.0.4 before DBMail has released a 2.0.4 is confusing.
I can't do that until after uploading the packages to debian.org. The first package of an upstream release *must* always be -1, that's why I use -0 to indicate a prerelease.
Btw, it looks like dbmail-2 will be uploaded to debian as dbmail2-mysql and dbmail2-pgsql. The problems arising from the migration scripts are potentially just too big, esp. so shortly before sarge release. Before an official upload however, I will *have* to fix the current libtool mess. Debian policy really doesn't like the current rpath /usr/lib/dbmail/ setup.
Anyway, on debian.nfgd.net you'll currently find 2.0.3-1 which includes the dsn fix by Aaron, and some search speedups by yours truly. But it doesn't include the bug-fix for bug #158 which *is* in cvs.
I'll start creating a separate repository for my exchanges with debian tomorrow, so it won't interfere with users of debian.nfgd.net.
-- ________________________________________________________________ Paul Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] NET FACILITIES GROUP GPG/PGP: 1024D/11F8CD31 The Netherlands_______________________________________www.nfg.nl
