On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Julian Mehnle wrote:
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. :-)
I had seen it done like this in the past. That is not to say that it is the right way but it seemed simple and at least not something new. Your suggestion would certainly be more explicit. Anyone know of a "correct" way to do it?
Cheers, Carlo -- Carlo U. Segre -- Professor of Physics Associate Dean for Special Projects, Graduate College Illinois Institute of Technology Voice: 312.567.3498 Fax: 312.567.3494 Carlo.Segre@iit.edu http://www.iit.edu/~segre