On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 03:13:10PM +0200, Sven Geuer wrote: > Hi Roland, > > On Fri, 2026-06-19 at 09:20 +0200, Roland Clobus wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 19/06/2026 09:01, Sven Geuer wrote: > > > upstream's braa sources suffer from non-incremental version > > > numbers: > > > 0.82 < 0.9 < 0.9.1 according to the order of commits (don't rely on > > > the order of tags displayed). The current packaging in Debian has > > > version 0.82-7. > > > > > > To be able to fix RC bug #1137251, I would like to increase the > > > epoch to 1 and update the package to version 1:0.9.1. > > > > You can change the version numbering slightly [1]: 'however, it may > > need to be reformatted to fit into the package management system’s > > format and comparison scheme.' > > > > It looks like 0.82 was actually 0.8.2, so why not release 0.9.1 with > > the reversed logic as '0.91+actually0.9.1'? > > Thanks for your idea. On the other hand 0.82 fits the once apparently > deliberately chosen numbering pattern [3] with even versions numbers > 0.4, 0.41, 0.42, 0.421 (sic!). > > > The package is at 0.x, so I guess there will be time to introduce > > semver [2] version numbers until 1.x gets released. > > Given upstream's sparse activities on braa, I feel not too confident > that a 1.0.0 will be released even in years. > > So, I still wonder whether bumping the epoch would be the appropriate > choice in this case. > > Are there other ideas?
Have you contacted upstream and asked them to cut a new release, preferable following semver? > > > > With kind regards, > > Roland Clobus > > Best, > Sven > > > > > [1] > > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#version > > [2] https://semver.org/ > > [3] > https://web.archive.org/web/20100725000743/http://s-tech.elsat.net.pl/braa/ > > -- > GPG Fingerprint > 3DF5 E8AA 43FC 9FDF D086 F195 ADF5 0EDA F8AD D585
