Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions

[Mattia Dongili <dongili@supereva.it>]

On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 12:09:12PM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:41:48AM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> > actually it's me who did the Stupid Thing(TM). :)
[...]
> > the less ugly debian version name I found is *1.1.final-1*. Is it ok or
> > has anybody a better suggestion?
> 
> You have to decide if you are going to do this sort of thing all the
> time or not.  If it this is a once-off, I'd use an epoch.  If packaging
> rc versions is going to be a regular thing, then you need to decide how
> to put your versions so the rc one appear older than the releases.

I'd like to continue to package also -rc versions, but since I'm also
upstream of this package I could ask myself to use a more decent version
numbering :)

So I'd go for an epoch, but I'm still puzzled here: is 20040104:1.1-1 ok
or should I go with 1.1.20040104-1 as I see that

# if `dpkg --compare-versions 20040104:1.1-1 lt 1.2-1` ; then echo "1" ; fi
#

thanks again
-- 
mattia
:wq!