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

Re: ignoring upstream's version number?

El dom, 31-07-2005 a las 22:20 +0200, Harald Dunkel escribió:
> 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 appears to be always out-of-date, since the broken upstream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.

 Put it on hold, and you won't be asked about upgrading it again. And
you have been told above, using the dash in the upstream version is not
a good option.

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

 You can also add the epoch number to your own packages. Thus, they will
be always newer than those coming from Debian, so they won't be
upgraded. Of course you don't have to add epochs to upstream sources.
That is not the goal of an epoch.

Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo

Reply to: