On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 08:32:10PM -0400, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > Source: gdesklets-data > Binary: gdesklets-data > Architecture: source all > Version: 0.13.1 > Distribution: unstable > Urgency: low > Maintainer: Sebastien Bacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Changed-By: Sebastien Bacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Description: > gdesklets-data - displays and sensors for gdesklets > Closes: 207088 > Changes: > gdesklets-data (0.13.1) unstable; urgency=low > . > * Fixed the wrong directory in README.Debian (Closes: #207088). > Files: > 85b18c208186cbe6a86b48c23e78b9d3 526 x11 optional gdesklets-data_0.13.1.dsc > 5b5c46862fbb651b34ef1c090cbcd776 344185 x11 optional > gdesklets-data_0.13.1.tar.gz > c18e378be01cbdb68d8121b464eada4b 319230 x11 optional > gdesklets-data_0.13.1_all.deb
Is it a common practice to use this kind of numbering (without a second part after a dash) for what I presume is a debian-made tarball (multiple upstream tarballs put together). gdesklets-data_0.13.1_all.deb Also (related) why not use a orig.tar.gz file? My understanding is that the difference between 0.13.1 and 0.13, because only the README.Debian has changed, it would have been a good thing to base it on the previous tarball. Christophe -- Christophe Barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast.