This one time, at band camp, Colin Watson said: > "Should" just means that the package won't be thrown out of the > distribution if it isn't fixed, unlike "must". It doesn't necessarily > mean that it's OK to ignore it. Certainly, I think people ought to have > a very good reason to ignore "should" directives, and that they should > expect bugs if they don't document those reasons. OK, then, I am persuaded. Between Colin and Steve's advice I think, barring any intevention from upstream (who has still not answered )-: ), I will give this a "false" version number like 0.1-DR7.9 until it gets a non-development release, so that I don;t in the future get bitten with being forced into using an epoch. Thanks all for the advice. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Stephen Gran | "Nature is very un-American. Nature | | steve@lobefin.net | never hurries." -- William George | | http://www.lobefin.net/~steve | Jordan | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgpckp3XID7MG.pgp
Description: PGP signature