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) or do you mean I should use something like 1.1.20040104-1 (which other packages use) thanks -- mattia :wq!
