Ludovico Cavedon wrote: > Hi, > > I could not find exactly how "-" and "." are ordered in package names. > Are they equivalent, counting as non-digits? > > My actual problem is: > -current version of qutecom is "2.2~rc3.dfsg1" > -as per lintian warning, the next version will be "+dfsg1" instead of > ".dfsg1" > -latest upstream version is still 2.2~rc3, but I would like to upload a > more recent snapshot from upstream hg. What would be the correct > packager version? > > - "2.2~rc3+hg365+dfsg1", being lucky that "+hg" comes after "+dfsg" > - "2.2~rc3-hg365+dfsg1", but would have the "-" any drawback I do not see?
When adding a dfsg or whatever suffix, always use ~ to avoid problems like the one Jan pointed out. So your version would be 2.2~rc3~dfsg1, and then you bump to 2.2~rc3+hg123~dfsg1. I think you should use 2.2~rc3.hg123~dfsg1 for now, and when 2.2 is released you go to 2.2.0~dfsg1 (the .0 is needed because dfsg sorts before rc3). -- Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
