Quoting Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (2003-04-30 14:05:05 BST): > Frank, > > > Of course I wouldn't want to put such a pre-Version into the Debian > > archive. > > If it works at least to some extent, it may be a good idea to put it in > the archive, accompanied by an R bug saying that this is not yet > suitable for release (which will keep it out of testing). Exposure to a > technology-savvy audience (unstable users) is a good thing for stuff in > the final bug-fixing phases. > > > So, as long as upstream hasn't agreed to change this (or even stated > > they never will), what should I do? In the special case where I came > > across this, it's even worse: The development versions for to-be 1.2 are > > numbered 1.2-1 to 1.2-4, and I fear the release will be just 1.2. > > The usual way is using "pre1", "pre2", ..., "rc1", ..., "rel". As a > matter of fact, this sorts nicely.
IMO a release should have a bare version number. What I did is this: cfengine2-2.0.5-1 cfengine2-2.0.5+2.0.6-pre1 ... cfengine2-2.0.6-1 Then all ugliness is confined for when you're doing ugly things :) -- Andrew Stribblehill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Systems programmer, IT Service, University of Durham, England
