> On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, Philip Hands wrote: > > > > > until 2.1.0 comes out, so that we wouldn't need to use a ``dirty, > > evil epoch''. > > No one has said anything about dirt or evil with respect to epochs.
Sorry, I was being facetious, and I forgot the ;-) > Policy says not to use them for this purpose. It also says not to use > pre-release numbering schemes. Which doesn't leave much wiggle room. Hm. So how would you deal with the 2.0.99.9.1 example, without epochs ? I think when policy says that it means ``premeditated use of epochs'' is a bad way of dealing with silly ``pre'' upstream versions. If you issue a ``pre'' version by mistake, as happened in this case, it recommends that you get yourself out of the hole with an epoch. > Brandon Mitchell has come up with a better scheme than my "numbering" > alternative. Consider the following: > > 2.0.8pre1 2.0.8-0pre1 > 2.0.8pre2 2.0.8-0pre2 > 2.0.8 2.0.8-1 Doesn't this mean that the upstream source will be called: packagename_2.0.8.orig.tar.gz the upstream author might have something to say about that, since it looks like a final release, and they've only published: packagename-2.0.8pre2.tgz Cheers, Phil. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]