* 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
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.
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
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:
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
5 matches
Mail list logo