[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#1088443: debian-policy: Recommend Debian package version format when upstream has no releases



Jeremy Bícha <jeremy.bicha@canonical.com> writes:

> Therefore, I used the format 0~20200916-1 for fonts-noto-color-emoji

Re-reading

https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-version

I wonder if we couldn't make an argument that "upstream_version" is
empty, which actually better reflect that there is no upstream version
number instead of incorrectly claiming that upstream_version is "0".

I don't want to destroy consensus on 0~20200916-1, which is my
preference, but maybe a version string like ~20200916-1 works for the
no-upstream-version scenario.

/Simon

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: