On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:08:34AM -0500, Chad Walstrom wrote: > Andreas Jochens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
This is not debian-policy but developers-reference (5.11.2. NMU version numbering) that mandate that -0.1 is reserved from 'new upstream version in NMU'. This way the maintainer can use -1 independently of whether a -0.1 release occurred. I don't see much point in dpkg rejecting -0, since it is a Debian specific practice. If -0 must be rejected then it should be done by dak, not dpkg (imho). I don't see much point either to force you to reupload -0 packages with -1, though I would strongly advise starting with -1 in the future. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
