On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 06:26 +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > What's upstream doing about it now? Are they releasing a 2.0.1 or 2.1 or 3 > or something to replace that one, or are they just sticking with the V2 > package? Again, what are upstream's plans? That will have a massive > bearing on what you do. Agreeing with and extending what Mathew said, I think the sensible solution would be for upstream to make a new release, in order to avoid more confusion. If that's done then you're job's simple, repackage with the new version and that's it. Make it as fast as possible though, since your users are probably a bit confused by now... and if upstream takes a while to release officially (for any reason), you could just get the CVS version tagged as 2.0, name it 2.0+1-1 or something like that and upload fast. If, however, upstream decides to not release a new tarball you repackage it yourself and use the same naming convention as above. Hope it helps. Cheers -- Leo Antunes <costela@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part