Mattia Dongili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 02:05:25AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> Mattia Dongili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is
>> > out...
>> [...]
>> > the less ugly debian version name I found is *1.1.final-1*. Is it ok or
>> > has anybody a better suggestion?
>> Read the fu^Wfine policy and use an epoch.
> 5.6.11 Version
> [...]
> Note that the purpose of epochs is to allow us to leave behind
> mistakes in version numbering(1) , and to cope with situations where the
> version numbering scheme changes. It is not intended to cope with
> version numbers containing strings of letters which the package
> management system cannot interpret (such as ALPHA or pre-)(2)
> [...]
>
> DP is a bit misleading here (IMO or is it me not being a native english
> speaker), is it the case of (1) or (2)?
> I thought it was (2)
No. A package with a "1.1-rc1" as version was a mistake. The next time
you do something like that, you use a version number like the inn2
cvs-snapshots do [1] (or any other, not-b0rken way to solve this)
Marc
Footnotes:
[1] 2.4.0+20031130-1
--
$_=')(hBCdzVnS})3..0}_$;//::niam/s~=)]3[))_$(rellac(=_$({pam(esrever })e$.)4/3*
)e$(htgnel+23(rhc,"u"(kcapnu ,""nioj ;|_- |/+9-0z-aZ-A|rt~=e$;_$=e${pam tnirp{y
V2ajFGabus} yV2ajFGa&{gwmclBHIbus}gwmclBHI&{yVGa09mbbus}yVGa09mb&{hBCdzVnSbus';
s/\n//g;s/bus/\nbus/g;eval scalar reverse # <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
