On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Frank Küster wrote: > Michael Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 10:11:18AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm currently preparing an NMU for a package which, besides an RC bug, > >> also has a bug in its last version number. The upstream version is > >> 4.22, but after 4.22-2 the maintainer uploaded 4.22.3. > >> > >> What do you suggest to get back to a sane version number until there is > >> a new upstream version 4.23 or higher? Is there a special letter like > >> ~, but not "lower than anything", but "higher than anything? That would > >> be great, it would just be appended to the 4.22. > >> > >> Otherwise, should I use 4.23~real.4.22-3.1 or similar beasts? Or just > >> go for 4.22.3-0.1 and leave the decision to the maintainer? > > > > Or use an epoch: 1:4.22-3.1 > > Hm, I don't think it's polite to introduce an epoch in an NMU.
You don't have to be polite to a snafu that can only be fixed by an epoch. *IF* it is the only technical way to fix it, you are entitled to use it. But make triple sure there isn't another way, first (which is what is being done in this thread :-) ). -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
