On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 11:58:26AM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote: > On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 10:03:52AM -0700, Matt Brubeck wrote: > > But if the NMU is a new upstream version 1.2, then the correct NMU > > version is 1.2-0.1. This is in the Debian Developer's Reference: > > > > "If it is absolutely necessary for someone other than the usual main- > > tainer to make a release based on a new upstream version then the person > > making the release should start with the debian-revision value `0.1'." > > > > -- DDR 5.11.4.1: Source NMU version numbering > > Okay, that reads like: > If there is no offical Debian maintainer yet, then use -0.1.
Policy only discusses verion number rules for uploaded versions, it doesn't discuss version numbers for private use. Use common sense for that, for example, either of the three possibilities I posted earlier (with advantages/disadvanteges even). > Also there is no harm in that it looks a like a NMU, It is confusing, but since it's unofficial, you'll only hurt yourself and your beta-testers. > it _says_ there is no one in Debian maintaining the package. No, this is plainly wrong, the version number an sich doesn't say anything about whether or not somebody in Debian is maintaining the package. Only the Maintainer: field of the latest package in sid days so, possibly with hints to future changes in wnpp. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
