On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 12:17:13PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > 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).
just for the record: the fact that dpkg-dev currently can't unpack such packages is due to a bug, not due to an intentional change... Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www: http://www.djpig.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
