I strongly recommend that you follow the 0.99+1.0beta4-1 scheme that
was suggested. Yes it's long, but it's also correct, flexible, and
proven. In summary, the format is
[last_stable_version]+[experimental_version]-[package_version]. Please
use it, starting with your existing packages,
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 01:32:37PM +0200, Pierre HABOUZIT wrote:
But I have a doubt suddently, since the (close: #ITP_nb) is not in the
changelog of the _last_ revision ... Do I need it to be in the last
revision to be taken into account ?
dpkg-buildpackage -v is your friend.
--
Colin Watson
Pierre HABOUZIT wrote:
I strongly recommend that you follow the 0.99+1.0beta4-1 scheme that
was suggested. Yes it's long, but it's also correct, flexible, and
proven. In summary, the format is
[last_stable_version]+[experimental_version]-[package_version]. Please
use it, starting with your
There were two points I was trying to make. One is that the format
1.4+1.5beta3-1 is superior to your proposed short version
1.4-1+beta3, which looks like trouble.
well good point again, I should have been not very carefully, in fact, I
was proposing something like 1.4+beta3-1 (misplaced
I strongly recommend that you follow the 0.99+1.0beta4-1 scheme that
was suggested. Yes it's long, but it's also correct, flexible, and
proven. In summary, the format is
[last_stable_version]+[experimental_version]-[package_version]. Please
use it, starting with your existing packages,
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 01:32:37PM +0200, Pierre HABOUZIT wrote:
But I have a doubt suddently, since the (close: #ITP_nb) is not in the
changelog of the _last_ revision ... Do I need it to be in the last
revision to be taken into account ?
dpkg-buildpackage -v is your friend.
--
Colin Watson
do you have any other advice/remark ?
well, if nobody has anything to add, is there someone interested in
beeing my sponsor for akregator ?
--
Pierre Habouzit
http://www.madism.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Pierre HABOUZIT wrote:
Indeed, in fact, where there will be a 1.1betax i'll use the
1.99-1+betax version number, that is really clear, and shorter than a
0.99-1+1.0-beta4
but in fact, the non-official debian repository where i dput my packages
atm had a qdirty package named 1.0-beta1 and I had
do you have any other advice/remark ?
well, if nobody has anything to add, is there someone interested in
beeing my sponsor for akregator ?
--
Pierre Habouzit
http://www.madism.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Pierre HABOUZIT wrote:
Indeed, in fact, where there will be a 1.1betax i'll use the
1.99-1+betax version number, that is really clear, and shorter than a
0.99-1+1.0-beta4
but in fact, the non-official debian repository where i dput my packages
atm had a qdirty package named 1.0-beta1 and I had to
Some preliminary comments as I have not yet had time to look at the
package proper:
- the diff.gz is pretty much empty, it just patches the
debian/changelog. I have not been able to verify if the upstream
tarballs contain debian/* as the files do not seem to be on the sf.net
mirrors yet. From the
- the diff.gz is pretty much empty, it just patches the
debian/changelog. I have not been able to verify if the upstream
tarballs contain debian/* as the files do not seem to be on the sf.net
mirrors yet.
they do.
From the CVS logs you seem to be part of the development
team, so it
On Thursday 01 July 2004 08:55, Jeremy Lainé wrote:
Some preliminary comments as I have not yet had time to look at the
package proper:
- the diff.gz is pretty much empty, it just patches the
debian/changelog. I have not been able to verify if the upstream
tarballs contain debian/* as the
no problem, I'm the release tech anyway.
I'm on it.
done.
revision 2 is on its way on kalyxo, and as ever it's on
http://amaretto.inria.fr:8080/~mc/akregator/
and as ever lintian, linda and pdebuild clean.
any remark ?
--
Pierre Habouzit
http://www.madism.org/
signature.asc
Description:
On Thursday, July 01, 2004 8:50 AM, Peter Rockai (mornfall)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 01 July 2004 08:55, Jeremy Lainé wrote:
[...]
- the package versions look dodgy, as there are 2 dashes
(1.0-beta4-1). Furthermore you are going to run into problems when
the final 1.0 version
Adam D. Barratt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The final version will be labelled 1.0.0-1 of course.
Erm, no, please don't. 1.0.0 is an NMU version number.
I thougth x-1.1 would be a NMU version number?
Christoph
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:16:23AM +0200, Christoph Wegscheider wrote:
Adam D. Barratt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The final version will be labelled 1.0.0-1 of course.
Erm, no, please don't. 1.0.0 is an NMU version number.
I thougth x-1.1 would be a NMU version number?
Indeed, in fact,
On Thursday, July 01, 2004 10:16 AM, Christoph Wegscheider
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adam D. Barratt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The final version will be labelled 1.0.0-1 of course.
Erm, no, please don't. 1.0.0 is an NMU version number.
I thougth x-1.1 would be a NMU version number?
You're
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 01:20:23AM +0200, Pierre HABOUZIT wrote:
Hello!
I'm looking for sponsor for the $SUBJ (and I would like to start my NM
application too). The will be available soon at :
deb http://www.kalyxo.org/debian unstable main
You didn't put the following lines in
You didn't put the following lines in debian/copyright (see [0] and
[1]):
[...]
grep -ri copyright akregator-1.0_beta4fixed/akregator/src/
very good point.
done
Please consider to put the URL of the home page of the package in the
description in debian/control. See [2] and [3].
done too
Some preliminary comments as I have not yet had time to look at the
package proper:
- the diff.gz is pretty much empty, it just patches the
debian/changelog. I have not been able to verify if the upstream
tarballs contain debian/* as the files do not seem to be on the sf.net
mirrors yet. From the
- the diff.gz is pretty much empty, it just patches the
debian/changelog. I have not been able to verify if the upstream
tarballs contain debian/* as the files do not seem to be on the sf.net
mirrors yet.
they do.
From the CVS logs you seem to be part of the development
team, so it
On Thursday 01 July 2004 08:55, Jeremy Lain wrote:
Some preliminary comments as I have not yet had time to look at the
package proper:
- the diff.gz is pretty much empty, it just patches the
debian/changelog. I have not been able to verify if the upstream
tarballs contain debian/* as the
no problem, I'm the release tech anyway.
I'm on it.
done.
revision 2 is on its way on kalyxo, and as ever it's on
http://amaretto.inria.fr:8080/~mc/akregator/
and as ever lintian, linda and pdebuild clean.
any remark ?
--
Pierre Habouzit
http://www.madism.org/
signature.asc
Description:
On Thursday, July 01, 2004 8:50 AM, Peter Rockai (mornfall)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 01 July 2004 08:55, Jeremy Lain wrote:
[...]
- the package versions look dodgy, as there are 2 dashes
(1.0-beta4-1). Furthermore you are going to run into problems when
the final 1.0 version comes
Adam D. Barratt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The final version will be labelled 1.0.0-1 of course.
Erm, no, please don't. 1.0.0 is an NMU version number.
I thougth x-1.1 would be a NMU version number?
Christoph
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:16:23AM +0200, Christoph Wegscheider wrote:
Adam D. Barratt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The final version will be labelled 1.0.0-1 of course.
Erm, no, please don't. 1.0.0 is an NMU version number.
I thougth x-1.1 would be a NMU version number?
Indeed, in fact,
On Thursday, July 01, 2004 10:16 AM, Christoph Wegscheider
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Adam D. Barratt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The final version will be labelled 1.0.0-1 of course.
Erm, no, please don't. 1.0.0 is an NMU version number.
I thougth x-1.1 would be a NMU version number?
You're
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 01:20:23AM +0200, Pierre HABOUZIT wrote:
Hello!
I'm looking for sponsor for the $SUBJ (and I would like to start my NM
application too). The will be available soon at :
deb http://www.kalyxo.org/debian unstable main
You didn't put the following lines in
You didn't put the following lines in debian/copyright (see [0] and
[1]):
[...]
grep -ri copyright akregator-1.0_beta4fixed/akregator/src/
very good point.
done
Please consider to put the URL of the home page of the package in the
description in debian/control. See [2] and [3].
done too
Hello!
I'm looking for sponsor for the $SUBJ (and I would like to start my NM
application too). The will be available soon at :
deb http://www.kalyxo.org/debian unstable main
and is already at
http://amaretto.inria.fr:8080/~mc/akregator/
here you have the official releases :
Hello!
I'm looking for sponsor for the $SUBJ (and I would like to start my NM
application too). The will be available soon at :
deb http://www.kalyxo.org/debian unstable main
and is already at
http://amaretto.inria.fr:8080/~mc/akregator/
here you have the official releases :
32 matches
Mail list logo
