Re: cvs versioning

2003-12-14 Thread Arnaud Vandyck
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] >> 3.2.1. Version numbers based on dates >> - [...] > I started a thread on -policy recently where I suggested this was bad > and should be something like 0.19960501

Re: cvs versioning

2003-12-13 Thread Peter S Galbraith
Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Brossier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I am working on packages from cvs upstream sources. How should I name > > their debian version ? I give a few examples below. > > > > Is there a spec for this somewhere ? > > In the policy? > > /usr/sha

Re: cvs versioning

2003-12-13 Thread Arnaud Vandyck
Sorry, bad list :'( Paul Brossier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am working on packages from cvs upstream sources. How should I name > their debian version ? I give a few examples below. > > Is there a spec for this somewhere ? In the policy? /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/policy.txt.gz 3.2.1.

Re: cvs versioning

2003-12-13 Thread Arnaud Vandyck
Paul Brossier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am working on packages from cvs upstream sources. How should I name > their debian version ? I give a few examples below. > > Is there a spec for this somewhere ? In the policy? /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/policy.txt.gz 3.2.1. Version numbers base