Re: kernel-image and epoch
>>"Josip" == Josip Rodin <joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr> writes:
Josip> Packaging manual advises to use "20000921" for versions of pre-releases,
Josip> too, and for the above reason that should be changed to "0.0.20000921".
Really? Here is what the packaging manual actually says:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
However, in some cases where the upstream version number is based on a
date (e.g., a development `snapshot' release) dpkg cannot handle these
version numbers currently, without epochs. For example, dpkg will
consider `96May01' to be greater than `96Dec24'.
To prevent having to use epochs for every new upstream version, the
version number should be changed to the following format in such
cases: `19960501', `19961224'. It is up to the maintainer whether
he/she wants to bother the upstream maintainer to change the version
numbers upstream, too.
Note, that other version formats based on dates which are parsed
correctly by dpkg should _not_ be changed.
Native Debian packages (i.e., packages which have been written
especially for Debian) 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 dates. So there is no mandate against "0.0.20000921",
as I interpret that.
Perhaps a wording change is required, though.
manoj
--
I'll pick up my papers, and smile at the sky. I know that the
hypnotized never lie.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: