Philipp Kern wrote: > > The maintainer could use an epoch to fix it. (It's like a 1: prefix.) > > >> 2.5.130.CVS.2005.07.19.01-1 >> 2.5.13-0.CVS.2005.07.19.01-1 > > > Is it really important to have the 0 split away? I think while dashes > are perfectly valid when there is a Debian revision they are not really > loved by the maintainers. >
I'm running my own fvwm package for several years. Now it appears to be always out-of-date, since the broken upstream version number part of fvwm in the official repository seems to have jumped from 2.5.12 to 2.5.130.xxx instead of 2.5.13. The epoch number is not supported in the official fvwm sources. Annoying. Regards Harri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
