Andreas Tille wrote: > I also follow the adivise I've got > some years ago to use: 0.0.YYYYMMDD - this is nearly save if > upstream starts using real version numbers.
NACK. 0.0.1 < 0.0.2009XXYY "Really" safe is 0~yyyymmdd or even 0+yyyymmdd. This is what I would suggest. We use this for tarballs based on pure SVN checkouts which don't have any version number (0+svnXXXX). However, upstream seems to use the date in their tarball names, so I cannot agree to your critics here and suggest to stay with the official release numbering. If upstream ever changes to something like x.y.z, *then* the Debian package should change to 1:x.y.z. Otherwise users might be confused by the version of the Debian package. > So for the next > upload I would strongly advise to use 1:0.0.2009MMDD as version > (the period is needed to let dpkg notice the higher version). As I said: I cannot agree, but it's not my package. So: just my 2 cents Regards, Daniel -- Neu: GMX FreeDSL Komplettanschluss mit DSL 6.000 Flatrate + Telefonanschluss für nur 17,95 Euro/mtl.!* http://dslspecial.gmx.de/freedsl-surfflat/?ac=OM.AD.PD003K11308T4569a -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
