Hi!
On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 12:12:11 +0100, Raphaël Hertzog wrote:
> Package: lintian
> Version: 2.5.73
> Severity: wishlist
> It would be nice if the long description of epoch-change-without-comment
> could document when it's appropriate to bump the epoch and ways to avoid
> the epoch bump
tags 889814 + pending
thanks
Fixed in Git, pending upload:
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=2a7f83e0fb26b06d2e4f5ea0f4fb97390eafb2d7
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
To help reduce the need to use an epoch later, I think we should
recommend packages with date-based numbering use a version number
prefixed with something like 0~. For instance, the current version of
fonts-noto-color-emoji in Debian is 0~20180102-1. This could possibly
be a Lintian warning if a
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.73
Severity: wishlist
It would be nice if the long description of epoch-change-without-comment
could document when it's appropriate to bump the epoch and ways to avoid
the epoch bump entirely.
I'm thinking of:
- upstream changed version numbering scheme in a way
4 matches
Mail list logo