Hi Roland, Tobias & Michael, On Fri, 2026-06-19 at 16:19 +0200, Tobias Frost wrote: > 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? >
Thanks for your thoughts. Will reach out to upstream and fix the bug independently of the version number issue. Cheers, Sven -- GPG Fingerprint 3DF5 E8AA 43FC 9FDF D086 F195 ADF5 0EDA F8AD D585
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
