Re: Package version numbers

2013-01-16 Thread Stephen Kitt
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 19:16:26 +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote: > Quoting Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org): > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Christian PERRIER wrote: > > > Quoting Jakub Wilk (jw...@debian.org): > > > > I would paint the bikeshed the following color: > > > > 0.8.51+dfsg1-0.1 > > > > > >

Re: Package version numbers

2013-01-16 Thread Christian PERRIER
Quoting Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org): > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Christian PERRIER wrote: > > Quoting Jakub Wilk (jw...@debian.org): > > > I would paint the bikeshed the following color: > > > 0.8.51+dfsg1-0.1 > > > > Isn't that missing the fact that this is a t-p-u upload, which is > > indeed

Re: Package version numbers

2013-01-16 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Christian PERRIER wrote: > Quoting Jakub Wilk (jw...@debian.org): > > I would paint the bikeshed the following color: > > 0.8.51+dfsg1-0.1 > > Isn't that missing the fact that this is a t-p-u upload, which is > indeed the start of a "wheezy" branch? > > So something we were n

Re: Package version numbers

2013-01-15 Thread Christian PERRIER
Quoting Jakub Wilk (jw...@debian.org): > * Stephen Kitt , 2013-01-15, 23:27: > >The version of calibre in Wheezy is 0.8.51+dfsg-1; what should the > >update's version be? I'm purposefully not mentioning our ideas > >(one of them is obvious from the exchanges in the bug report, but > >is in all like

Re: Package version numbers

2013-01-15 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Stephen Kitt , 2013-01-15, 23:27: The version of calibre in Wheezy is 0.8.51+dfsg-1; what should the update's version be? I'm purposefully not mentioning our ideas (one of them is obvious from the exchanges in the bug report, but is in all likelihood incorrect). I would paint the bikeshed t