Em Seg, 2005-09-26 às 19:30 -0300, Daniel Ruoso escreveu: > Em Seg, 2005-09-26 às 16:20 -0500, Manoj Srivastava escreveu: > > Whatever the problem here is, it is not in > > cvs-buildpackage. Here follows a log of a succesfull build of a > > dummy package with an epoch > Yes, it was a successfull build, but wasn't the .changes file supposed > to be named > ufc_1:0.23_i386.changes > instead of > ucf_0.23_i386.changes > ?
After some research, I saw there's one reference about this in http://www.debian.org/devel/cvs_packages but it just says the epoch version is not included in the CVS tag, but don't say anything about the epoch version not being included in the package file name. On the other hand, policy says the package file name should be package_<version>-<revision>_<arch>.deb, but don't specify anything about epoch numbers. So... I'm lost... should I just ignore the epoch number? what do you think? daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
