On Sun, 2003-06-08 at 13:15, Sven Luther wrote: > I don't really know, you mean i should take the working 2.0.1-4 package, > add an epoch to the package name, apply the fix, and upload that, even > if there has already been a 2.0.2-1 in the archive, which caused all > this problem.
Yep, that's what I mean. > I don't really like using epochs, and forcing an epoch > upgrade by a NMU sound kind of rude to me, i don't want to do that. We don't have much of a choice now. > Maybe i could do what you suggest, and upload a 2.0.2.is_really_2.0.1-0.1 > and let Noel to sort this out when he looks at the package again. That would probably work too, yeah.
