Re: svn revs as version number

2013-06-04 Thread Etienne Millon
* Felix Natter fnat...@gmx.net [130603 20:39]: = The question is: Can we use 29618 (or svn29618 or r29618) as the debian version number (consistent with upstream) or do we have to use 0.0+svn29618? Hello, As others pointed you can use 29618 as a version number and add an epoch when upstream

Re: svn revs as version number

2013-06-04 Thread Felix Natter
Etienne Millon etienne.mil...@gmail.com writes: * Felix Natter fnat...@gmx.net [130603 20:39]: = The question is: Can we use 29618 (or svn29618 or r29618) as the debian version number (consistent with upstream) or do we have to use 0.0+svn29618? Hello, Thanks for all the useful answers.

svn revs as version number

2013-06-03 Thread Felix Natter
hi, finally we've talked the JMapViewer maintainers into making proper release archives, and they did, but unfortunately, they used svn revision numbers instead of adequate versions: http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/viewer/jmapviewer/releases/29618/JMapViewer-29618-Source.zip = The

Re: svn revs as version number

2013-06-03 Thread Paul Tagliamonte
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 08:07:32PM +0200, Felix Natter wrote: hi, finally we've talked the JMapViewer maintainers into making proper release archives, and they did, but unfortunately, they used svn revision numbers instead of adequate versions:

Re: svn revs as version number

2013-06-03 Thread Norbert Preining
Hi Felix, On Mo, 03 Jun 2013, Felix Natter wrote: = The question is: Can we use 29618 (or svn29618 or r29618) as the debian version number (consistent with upstream) or do we have to Sure! 29618-1 is completely reasonable. In fact, it is a *good* version number, one that - unless they