Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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...
I don't know if this is relevant or not, but there *are* cases where a
dash *within* the upstream version makes sense. I opted for this for
my sp package, which comes out of the jade source package. Even
though SP comes out of jade sources, it has it's own version number:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]:source> nsgmls -v
nsgmls:I: SP version "1.3"
However, the jade source version is 1.1. Therefore, I derived a sp
package version number by using both numbers, separated by a dash,
i.e.,
sp_1.3-1.1-6_i386.deb
\\\ \\\
SP jade version
I really think the way I did it was the most elegant way.
--
.....A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
