Re: Bug#380498: parsing of atom dates is broken

Carlo Segre wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> > Does this mean that there is a 0.22a upstream version?  If not, you
> > should have numbered the package 0.22-2 instead.
>
> nope, I had to rename the *.orig.tar.gz because otherwise it would have
> resulted as "already uploaded" and it was very large, containing all the
> debian directories and the .svn parts too.  In other words, I was not
> uploading a "real" upstream tarball.

I see.  Interestingly, as far as I know not even an epoch would have solved 
the problem as epochs aren't reflected by the package name.  But maybe 
0.22+rebuild-1 or something would still have been a better idea in order 
to avoid suggesting the existence of a 0.22a upstream version. :-)

pgpPH80qNJUVA.pgp
Description: PGP signature