On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 00:21:41 +0300 Michael Tokarev <[email protected]> wrote: > 24.02.2017 00:16, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > > Source: qemu > > Version: 1:2.8+dfsg-2 > > Severity: low > > > > Could you please use the full version number 2.8.0 instead of 2.8? > > What's wrong with using just 2-component version number? > We do apply the stable patchsets, and we do apply the selected > stable patches. So the result is really not any 2.8.y patcheset, > but something more than that. > > On the other hand, using full 3-components version number requires > re-upload of the upstream source, and makes packaging to be more > work than it is now. > > So what do we gain and what for? > > If it is only the watch file, that's so much minor non-issue, > there's just no point in spending time with that.
I would also agree with using the same version number as the one released by upstream (ie 2.12.0 vs 2.12)
The tarball you are (or should) download is already coming with that version in the name
This is generally a good habit to stick with the version scheme upstream is using IMHO
Kind regards, Laurent Bigonville
