> Philip> The ``put the painful bit after the dash in the debian
> Philip> version'' suggestion is no good I'm afraid, because the
> Philip> orig.tar.gz ends up giving the impression that Debian has the
> Philip> release version already, whereas it's just the pre-release
> Philip> version with a bogus name.
>
> Well, yes, the source file does do that. The .deb files do
> too, unless one is aware that the -0pre means a pre-release.
>
> Ulp. I had not considered the source dist, and maybe we
> should.
>
> In balance, 2.0.7.99.1 seems to be the least kludgey.
I concur.
I think the policy should be:
1) don't use 1.2.3pre style versions, even if the upstream author does,
because you'll have a problem when 1.2.3 comes out.
2) So you didn't read 1) until after you released foo_1.2.3pre-1 ?
OK, just bump the epoch, and don't do it again.
3) One nice way of avoiding this is to do the following:
Authors version: Debian version
foo-1.2.2 foo-1.2.2-1
foo-1.2.2-2
foo-1.2.3alpha foo-1.2.2.99.1-1
foo-1.2.2.99.1-2
foo-1.2.3beta foo-1.2.2.99.2-1
foo-1.2.2.99.2-2
foo-1.2.3 foo-1.2.3-1
Cheers, Phil.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
