Re: Bug#380498: parsing of atom dates is broken
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?
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