On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 09:22 +0100, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote: > On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 05:57:00PM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote: > > Hmm, my upload got rejected for some version ... I've sent off some > > mail to try figure out why. > > > > On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 03:02 +0000, Debian Installer wrote: > > > Rejected: libattr1-dev_2.4.36-1_i386.deb: old version (1:2.4.32-1.1) > > in unstable >= new version (2.4.36-1) targeted at unstable. > > > Rejected: libattr1_2.4.36-1_i386.deb: old version (1:2.4.32-1.1) in > > unstable >= new version (2.4.36-1) targeted at unstable. > > > Rejected: attr_2.4.36-1_i386.deb: old version (1:2.4.32-1.1) in > > unstable >= new version (2.4.36-1) targeted at unstable. > > > Rejected: attr_2.4.36-1.dsc: old version (1:2.4.32-1.1) in unstable >= > > new version (2.4.36-1) targeted at unstable. > > > > > > === > > > > > > If you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if the > > > override file requires editing, reply to this email. > > As reports of broken sid systems rose up, Andreas Barth NMUed > your package yesterday in a 0-day NMU policy. He setup an epoch > to the package version which IMHO is a bad thing now that we > have the possibility of ~ in version strings. He could have used > 2.4.35~is.2.4.32-0.1 instead of the ugly 1:2.4.32-1.1, because from > now on, you are stuck with an epoch in your package versions.
Oh. What is your recommendation on fixing this Andi? How do I get past this epoch that's been thown into my previously neat and tidy version management, and back to the simple versioning model I had? thanks. -- Nathan
