Re: ignoring upstream's version number?

To: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@t-online.de>
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: ignoring upstream's version number?
From: Philipp Kern <phil@philkern.de>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:30:45 +0200
Message-id: <[🔎] 1122838245.19341.13.camel@o2.net.philkern.de>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 42ED24AB.6030909@t-online.de>
References: <[🔎] 42ED06C7.6090608@t-online.de> <[🔎] 1122830583.16213.0.camel@gimli.tribulaciones.org> <[🔎] 42ED24AB.6030909@t-online.de>

On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 21:21 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> And how is this going to be fixed? The broken version
> number might be much higher than upstream's version
> number. AFAIK there is no way to turn it back, is it?

The maintainer could use an epoch to fix it. (It's like a 1: prefix.)

> 	2.5.130.CVS.2005.07.19.01-1
> 	2.5.13-0.CVS.2005.07.19.01-1

Is it really important to have the 0 split away? I think while dashes
are perfectly valid when there is a Debian revision they are not really
loved by the maintainers.

Kind regards,
Philipp Kern

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: ignoring upstream's version number?
  - From: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@t-online.de>

References:
- ignoring upstream's version number?
  - From: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@t-online.de>
- Re: ignoring upstream's version number?
  - From: Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <jsogo@debian.org>
- Re: ignoring upstream's version number?
  - From: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@t-online.de>

Prev by Date: Re: ignoring upstream's version number?
Next by Date: Re: RFC: allow new upstream into stable when it's the only way to fix security issues.
Previous by thread: Re: ignoring upstream's version number?
Next by thread: Re: ignoring upstream's version number?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread