Hello, Sorry for the delay in responding. I had less free time than I thought. gregor herrmann <gregor+debian@comodo.priv.at> ha scritto: > So I suggest you use e.g. 0.99+ds-1 for your package. On Fri, 08 Feb 2008, David Paleino wrote: > Now, after some reasoning, I believe that I should use something like > "0.99+ds-1", (or "0.99~ds-1", but it results to be lesser than 0.99-1). I understand the ds part. Is there some reason why "0.99.ds1-2" was left out of the choices? This seems to be the practice for packages like "sysvinit" for example. The .tar.gz would then be named libx86_0.99.ds1.orig.tar.gz which is fine since it is the source which is being re-packaged by Debian. I have not yet done the rest of my review so you may want to wait a while before uploading a new version to mentors. Regards, Kapil. --
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature