Hi, On 09/07/13 08:20, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 11:37:25AM +0600, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 12:04:28PM -0700, Tong Sun wrote:However, the upstream chose to put 0.9.5-1 in the changelog file,You shouldn't care about changelog entries added by the upstream.Yet having two versions of the package with the same number in the wild is not good, even if one of those did not come from Debian. I wouldn't care about some random repository in a corner of the Internet, but packaging done by the upstream is likely to be present on some users' machines. And bumping a version number is cheap...
I would tend to agree with this, and a version like 0.9.5-1+THIS is not common but is allowed by the policy (THIS could simply be 1). It might be less correct but more common to do a (dummy) repackaging and call the version something like 0.9.5+THAT-1 (THAT being few letters, no good idea here...); and this even wouldn't be a trick if you decide to get rid of upstream's debian folder.Alternatively again, you could use an 'epoch' but the policy states that it's not meant to address bad upstream versioning, so possibly not the best approach :-)
In both cases, you should document your decision and the reason for it in the README.source.
Eric