Re: kernel-image and epoch
On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 01:40:30AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Packaging manual advises to use "20000921" for versions of pre-releases,
> > too, and for the above reason that should be changed to "0.0.20000921".
> Really? Here is what the packaging manual actually says:
> version number should be changed to the following format in such
> cases: `19960501', `19961224'.
> Native Debian packages whose version numbers include dates should
> always use the `YYYYMMDD' format.
> As I interpret it, the section merely talks about how dates should be
> formatted, and does not mandate that teh version number consist only of
The above chunks seem like they want packages to have the whole version
number changed according to the specified format, not just the date part.
It is a matter of interpretation, in any case.
> Perhaps a wording change is required, though.
Yes, please. The policy (soon to be) should be as exact as possible.
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification