Carlo Segre wrote: > On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Julian Mehnle wrote: > > Does this mean that there is a 0.22a upstream version? If not, you > > should have numbered the package 0.22-2 instead. > > nope, I had to rename the *.orig.tar.gz because otherwise it would have > resulted as "already uploaded" and it was very large, containing all the > debian directories and the .svn parts too. In other words, I was not > uploading a "real" upstream tarball. I see. Interestingly, as far as I know not even an epoch would have solved the problem as epochs aren't reflected by the package name. But maybe 0.22+rebuild-1 or something would still have been a better idea in order to avoid suggesting the existence of a 0.22a upstream version. :-)
Attachment:
pgp8C1_gSH0Dm.pgp
Description: PGP signature