Hello *, On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:05:21PM +0200, Christoph Haas wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 11:44:34AM +0200, Luca Bruno wrote: > > As I've already written in my previuos message, I used -0.1 because > > that is a not (yet) official package. Your fixes (and others as well) > > will be in -0.2 soon, for another revision here. > > -1 will be the revision for first sid upload. > > I'm going to close my ITP in -1. > > Please read also [1]... > > Yes, I read that. Okay. I assumed that it's an NMU but it's right that > 0.1 cannot be an NMU revision since -0 is not a valid revision either. Uh, wrong, please see "5.11.2 NMU version numbering" at <http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs#s-nmu-version>: | If there is no debian-revision component in the version number then | one should be created, starting at `0.1'. If it is absolutely | necessary for someone other than the usual maintainer to make a | release based on a new upstream version then the person making the | release should start with the debian-revision value `0.1'. The usual | maintainer of a package should start their debian-revision numbering | at `1'. > [...] > Uh, err, it was late... and dark... and I had too much coffee... > [...] Ah, OK. :) Cheers, Flo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature