On Fri, 1 May 2009 14:48:24 +0200 (CEST), Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Charles Plessy wrote: > > > Author: plessy > > Date: 2009-04-30 23:56:12 +0000 (Thu, 30 Apr 2009) > > New Revision: 3340 > > > > Modified: trunk/packages/phyml/trunk/debian/changelog > > =================================================================== > > --- trunk/packages/phyml/trunk/debian/changelog 2009-04-30 20:57:26 > > UTC (rev 3339) +++ trunk/packages/phyml/trunk/debian/changelog > > 2009-04-30 23:56:12 UTC (rev 3340) @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ > > -phyml (21042009-1) unstable; urgency=low > > +phyml (30042009-1) unstable; urgency=low > > If upstream does not have a real version numbering and we have > to invent our own version numbers this is always a bad thing. > [..] > I also follow the adivise I've got some years ago to use: 0.0.YYYYMMDD - this > is nearly save if upstream starts using real version numbers. So for the next > upload I would strongly advise to use 1:0.0.2009MMDD as version > (the period is needed to let dpkg notice the higher version). I'd suggest to additionally use "~" or "+": $ dpkg --compare-versions 1:0.0~20090501 lt 1:0.0.1 && echo true true $ dpkg --compare-versions 1:0.0~20090501 lt 1:0.1 && echo true true This is failsafe in case upstream starts with 0.0.1 or 0.1. Also, using "+" is another option here, but be warned here: 0.0~2009 < 0.0 < 0.0+2009 < 0.0.1 So, as long as you use 0.0 (which I don't believe any upstream would use for a first release), they behave the same :) Ciao, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature