Re: libc6_2.0.7 release notes...
> On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, Philip Hands wrote:
>
> >
> > until 2.1.0 comes out, so that we wouldn't need to use a ``dirty,
> > evil epoch''.
>
> No one has said anything about dirt or evil with respect to epochs.
Sorry, I was being facetious, and I forgot the ;-)
> Policy says not to use them for this purpose. It also says not to use
> pre-release numbering schemes. Which doesn't leave much wiggle room.
Hm. So how would you deal with the 2.0.99.9.1 example, without epochs ?
I think when policy says that it means ``premeditated use of epochs'' is a bad
way of dealing with silly ``pre'' upstream versions.
If you issue a ``pre'' version by mistake, as happened in this case, it
recommends that you get yourself out of the hole with an epoch.
> Brandon Mitchell has come up with a better scheme than my "numbering"
> alternative. Consider the following:
>
> 2.0.8pre1 2.0.8-0pre1
> 2.0.8pre2 2.0.8-0pre2
> 2.0.8 2.0.8-1
Doesn't this mean that the upstream source will be called:
packagename_2.0.8.orig.tar.gz
the upstream author might have something to say about that, since it looks
like a final release, and they've only published:
packagename-2.0.8pre2.tgz
Cheers, Phil.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: