Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I was just using that as an example of an existing package that had multiple > minuses in the version. > > I didn't make it up, I got it out of hamm: > > hamm/hamm/binary-all/doc/libc6-pre2.1-doc_2.0.93-980414-1.deb
Well, it's definitely broken. Totally unclear what the Debian revision is. Sounds like a good thing for lintian to be checking. Using package names or version numbers that violate our standard could get us in all kinds of trouble... -- Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
