On Thu, Jun 25, 1998 at 02:09:43PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, Jules Bean wrote: > > > Someone suggested this earlier in the discussion, and someone else pointed > > out that this is clearly against policy, since anything after the '-' should > > reflect debian-specific packaging changes, not upstream changes. > > > Then I would argue that the policy statement is self contradictory. The -0 > and -1 suffixes create (and declare) those releases to be source change > releases, which are, obviously, upstream changes.
That's odd. It was my understanding that a -0 release simply indicated a non-maintainer release of a new upstream source. I'm not aware of any place in the policy manuals that says that -0 and -1 might be different sources. I know dpkg-buildpackage considers either one grounds for a source upload, but I don't see where it is mentioned (or obvious) that they are different sources. dpkg-buildpackage just can't deduce that there might have been a -0 release, so it must assume that -1 is the first release. I'm still really vague on what REAL technical objection has been raised to actually using (oh, horror!) epochs. Yes, it will remain in the version number "forever". So what? Who cares? If the epoch reaches 50, who is going to notice and care? The reason we use the upstream version numbers is for recognition. If they don't fit, we use epochs and be done with it. The version numbers are recognisable in the filenames, and dpkg knows which comes first. I see that as a good thing. -- Scott K. Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
