Hi,
12/07/27, Matteo F. Vescovi wrote:
I'm not going to use SVN revisions other than the stable releases.
So Debian Blender package is not going to face this issue at all.
Since I'm actually the only active maintainer for this package,
I don't see any issue in naming using upstream's version num
On 12-07-27 at 09:58am, Micah Gersten wrote:
> This is not an Ubuntu issue, but a PPA issue.
I don't care, really (and sorry I confused matters by mentioning a
specific Debian derivative at all). What I care about is if packages
follow our "stream of changes" - i.e. upstream/downstream relation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
severity 682948 wishlist
thanks
On 07/27/2012 09:12 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 12-07-27 at 10:02pm, IRIE Shinsuke wrote:
>> I forgot to say that actually there were official deb packages using
>> "+cvs" suffix in the past (ex. 2.25b+cvs.2003.02
On 12-07-27 at 10:02pm, IRIE Shinsuke wrote:
> I forgot to say that actually there were official deb packages using
> "+cvs" suffix in the past (ex. 2.25b+cvs.2003.02.17-1). So, "+svn"
> suffix might be used for the future versions of the official packages.
>
> I mean the versioning scheme like
I forgot to say that actually there were official deb packages using
"+cvs" suffix in the past (ex. 2.25b+cvs.2003.02.17-1). So, "+svn"
suffix might be used for the future versions of the official packages.
I mean the versioning scheme like 2.63.1 is generally necessary,
not only for my PPA's pa
Package: blender
Version: 2.63a-1
Severity: important
Please don't change the versioning scheme, and don't use upstream
version string "a", "b", etc. Old blender package for 2.49b used the
package version "2.49.2" to avoid the upgrade issue.
Changelog of 2.49.2~dfsg-1 says:
This is actually 2
6 matches
Mail list logo
