Hi SZ Lin (林上智) <sz...@debian.org> 於 2020年3月5日 週四 下午6:39寫道： > > Hi Scott, > > Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> 於 2020年3月1日 週日 下午1:28寫道： > > > > On Sunday, March 1, 2020 12:06:13 AM EST SZ Lin (林上智) wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I'm working on fixing bugs (including RC) on google-authenticator[1] which > > > name should be "google-authenticator-libpam" instead. > > > > > > [1] https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/google-authenticator > > > [2] https://github.com/google/google-authenticator-libpam > > > > > > I intend to import the new upstream release, but the current upstream > > > version changed the versioning scheme and thus epoch is needed to avoid > > > the > > > latest version lower than the previous one, as shown below. > > > > > > ===================== > > > Previous version: 20170702-2 > > > Proposed version: 1:1.08-1 > > > ===================== > > > > > > I've contacted the package maintainer in January but got no response so > > > far. > > > So I plan to upload the package via the NMU process. > > > > > > Any feedback is welcome. > > > > I'm only commenting about the epoch, since I don't know enough about the > > situation to have an opinion on if doing this via NMU is appropriate. > > > > Since you say the package is incorrectly named, would it make more sense to > > rename the package now? Then you wouldn't need an epoch at all. > > Yes, it makes sense to me. > > Thanks for your comment.
Uh, NAK. Since the name of the binary package is not changed, but the source package name instead, I think the epoch is still needed in this case. ===================== Previous version: 20170702-2 Proposed version: 1:1.08-1 ===================== SZ > > SZ > > > > > Scott K
