Re: svn revs as version number

2013-06-04 Thread Felix Natter
Etienne Millon writes: > * Felix Natter [130603 20:39]: >> => The question is: Can we use "29618" (or "svn29618" or "r29618") as >> the debian version number (consistent with upstream) or do we have to >> use "0.0+svn29618"? > > Hello, Thanks for all the useful answers. > As others pointed you

Re: svn revs as version number

2013-06-03 Thread Etienne Millon
* Felix Natter [130603 20:39]: > => The question is: Can we use "29618" (or "svn29618" or "r29618") as > the debian version number (consistent with upstream) or do we have to > use "0.0+svn29618"? Hello, As others pointed you can use 29618 as a version number and add an epoch when upstream switc

Re: svn revs as version number

2013-06-03 Thread Norbert Preining
Hi Felix, On Mo, 03 Jun 2013, Felix Natter wrote: > => The question is: Can we use "29618" (or "svn29618" or "r29618") as > the debian version number (consistent with upstream) or do we have to Sure! 29618-1 is completely reasonable. In fact, it is a *good* version number, one that - unl

Re: svn revs as version number

2013-06-03 Thread Paul Tagliamonte
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 08:07:32PM +0200, Felix Natter wrote: > hi, > > finally we've talked the JMapViewer maintainers into making proper > release archives, and they did, but unfortunately, they used svn > revision numbers instead of adequate versions: > > http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applicati