Andreas Jochens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 05-Aug-10 07:05, Chad Walstrom wrote: > > reassign 322359 dpkg 1.13.10 > > > > Andreas Jochens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This is because the new dpkg does not accept a version ending with '-0'. > > > > Well then. Wouldn't that be a bug with dpkg? ;-) > > I understand that this was changed intentionally. > > Policy seems to require that the numbers start with '-1'.
Require is hardly true. If I recall correctly, and perhaps I'm a geezer in this respect, policy recommends that debian package numbers start with -1. It doesn't require that they do. In fact, tools have been designed to accommodate both 0 and 1 as the initial version. We do live in a computer world where ordinal numbers are a rule, not an exception. If the debian-policy makers enforce the no "-0" rule, I will upload a new version. But until I'm told otherwise, I'll continue to use "-0" as my initial package versions. -- Chad Walstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.wookimus.net/ assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
