Hello Peter, On Mon, 2023-10-23 at 17:26 +0000, Peter Wienemann wrote: > Dear Sven, > > On 23.10.23 17:19, Sven Geuer wrote: > > I would prefer to remove the 0~ prefix from the package version, > > resulting in an upcoming version of 20190702+dfsg-4 instead of > > 0~20190702+dfsg-4. This would align the version in Debian to other > > distros, see [1] for details. > > > > Are there arguments to not change the versioning in this way? > > > > [1] https://repology.org/project/argon2/versions > > I see the same issue for dnstwist [0]. Still there is a good reason to > keep the present Debian versioning as it is - see the description of the > Lintian tag "new-package-uses-date-based-version-number" [1] for an > explanation. > Thanks for pointing this out. However, I am unsure if lintian would still complain in regards to argon2 (and also dnstwist) as the package is not a new one anymore. The explanation in [1] cleary states This package appears to be the first packaging of a new upstream software package (there is only one changelog entry and the Debian revision is 1) and uses a date-based versioning scheme such as YYYYMMDD-1. and upstream kept using the YYYYMMDD versioning scheme since the beginning in 2015 (they might change their mind, though). > Best regards, > > Peter > > [0] https://repology.org/project/dnstwist/versions > [1] > https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/d44a4d1a4a053b39ca2acbfa0c67ac4b5e04df59/tags/n/new-package-uses-date-based-version-number.tag > @all: Are there other pros or cons? -- GPG Fingerprint 3DF5 E8AA 43FC 9FDF D086 F195 ADF5 0EDA F8AD D585
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part