On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 11:28:08AM +0300, Birzan George Cristian wrote: > On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 09:38, Patrick Kirk wrote: > > Wierd dependency - zendapi-20010901 does not look like a Debian product name. > > It is. According to the policy, > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-versions.html#s4.1, if the > upstream package has a date-based versioning system, the Debian package > should have the same. Even if the New Maintainers' Guide does state that > the maintainer should prepend 0.0. to the date/version, that can be > handled by epochs.
The New Maintainer's Guide is actually talking about real version numbers here, as opposed to things in package names that just look a bit like version numbers. So it's OK. -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
