[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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
> dates.

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

Reply to: