Re: question about version number

1999-07-08 Thread Martin Bialasinski
>> "Stephan" == Stephan A Suerken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Stephan> I hope the original poster is aware of our in-depth analysis Stephan> of the problem? We might consider packaging this thread Stephan> itself, to make it available for the whole debian community Stephan> in a convenient way.

Re: question about version number

1999-07-07 Thread Stephan A Suerken
"Martin Bialasinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Stephan> You are completely right, yet it seems you did not really > Stephan> answer to my point ;). > > Maybe this time I get it right :-) (..) > Generally: > > When you package a software, you take a look how the author handles > things. T

Re: question about version number

1999-07-06 Thread Martin Bialasinski
>> "Stephan" == Stephan A Suerken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Stephan> Sure he did, but what I meant is how could he know the next Stephan> version would be (imho wrongly) be versioned 1.6? Normally, Stephan> the version following 1.52 would be 1.53. [...] Stephan> You are completely right, yet

Re: question about version number

1999-07-06 Thread Stephan A Suerken
"Martin Bialasinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Stephan> Sure he did, but what I meant is how could he know the next > Stephan> version would be (imho wrongly) be versioned 1.6? Normally, > Stephan> the version following 1.52 would be 1.53. > > Which he would have packaged as 1.5.3, so where

Re: question about version number

1999-07-04 Thread Martin Bialasinski
>> "Stephan" == Stephan A Suerken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Stephan> "Martin Bialasinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Because 1.6 < 1.52, as 6 < 52 >> >> He did the right thing. Stephan> Sure he did, but what I meant is how could he know the next Stephan> version would be (imho wrongly) be

Re: question about version number

1999-07-04 Thread Stephan A Suerken
"Martin Bialasinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Because 1.6 < 1.52, as 6 < 52 > > He did the right thing. Sure he did, but what I meant is how could he know the next version would be (imho wrongly) be versioned 1.6? Normally, the version following 1.52 would be 1.53. Maybe he knew because

Re: question about version number

1999-07-02 Thread Martin Bialasinski
>> "Stephan" == Stephan A Suerken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Stephan> Eduardo Fernandez Corrales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I packaged a program that had 1.52 as upstream version number. Debian >> version number was 1.5.2-1 Stephan> Hmm, not knowing that the next upstream would be versioned

Re: question about version number

1999-07-01 Thread Stephan A Suerken
Eduardo Fernandez Corrales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I packaged a program that had 1.52 as upstream version number. Debian > version number was 1.5.2-1 Hmm, not knowing that the next upstream would be versioned 1.6, why didn't you version the debian package 1.52-1 ? However, not having do

Re: question about version number

1999-07-01 Thread Julian Gilbey
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...] > Hello, > > I packaged a program that had 1.52 as upstream version number. Debian > version number was 1.5.2-1 That's a relief! > Now there is a new version upstream version numbered 1.6. > > Should I number it 1.6-1 or 1.6.0-1? Either

question about version number

1999-07-01 Thread Eduardo Fernandez Corrales
Hello, I packaged a program that had 1.52 as upstream version number. Debian version number was 1.5.2-1 Now there is a new version upstream version numbered 1.6. Should I number it 1.6-1 or 1.6.0-1? I hope this question is not too stupid. If it is please point me to the appropiate documentati