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

Re: ignoring upstream's version number?

Philipp Kern wrote:
> 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.

I'm running my own fvwm package for several years. Now it
appears to be always out-of-date, since the broken upstream
version number part of fvwm in the official repository seems
to have jumped from 2.5.12 to 2.5.130.xxx instead of 2.5.13.

The epoch number is not supported in the official fvwm sources.




Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: