Re: libc6_2.0.7 release notes...
--On Fri, Jun 26, 1998 9:08 am -0500 "Rob Browning" <rlb@cs.utexas.edu>
wrote:
> Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes:
>
>> I was just using that as an example of an existing package that had
multiple
>> minuses in the version.
>>
>> I didn't make it up, I got it out of hamm:
>>
>> hamm/hamm/binary-all/doc/libc6-pre2.1-doc_2.0.93-980414-1.deb
>
> Well, it's definitely broken. Totally unclear what the Debian
> revision is. Sounds like a good thing for lintian to be checking.
> Using package names or version numbers that violate our standard could
> get us in all kinds of trouble...
????
As has been pointed out twice now, our policy is quite clear on this.
Minus signs are perfectly legal in upstream version numbers. The final
minus sign is the one which delimits the debian version. There is no
ambiguity.
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| Debian GNU/Linux - "Microsoft *does* have a year 2000 problem - |
| and we're it!" (paraphrased from IRC) |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: