This message is in MIME format and has been PGP signed.

Hi all,

the src:package ayatana-indicator-messages contains bin:pkgs (libmessagingmenu*) that have the same name as Ubuntu's src:pkg indicator-messages.

The src:pkg indicator-messages has a higher version number than ayatana-indicator-messages and thus the latter fails to be imported
into Ubuntu.

See:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1000801

The solution for this probably is bumping the epoch of the package
version to 1:0.9.x-y. Any objections to this by anyone?

Bumping the epoch to 1 would be sufficient, right?

Greets,
Mike
--

mike gabriel aka sunweaver (Debian Developer)
mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148
landline: +49 (4351) 486 14 27

GnuPG Fingerprint: 9BFB AEE8 6C0A A5FF BF22 0782 9AF4 6B30 2577 1B31
mail: sunweaver@debian.org, http://sunweavers.net


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEm/uu6GwKpf+/IgeCmvRrMCV3GzEFAmG18OIACgkQmvRrMCV3 GzGWmA/+IRm3KN3JD650TiBUvea2kOVKjiizoyNlo6ycY2fKQ0zFSSjeLs5QSodt 2lnQiSdSIDkJXOrYUuOzWjYAxVCMmIiiLyRPpO+Q+eenTXbFneThZbytD7W2t0xr MVlquHmPi2RqdQk8GIGJh6kPyJj7ogMzBQYSWfpbOd4sQEhMEQbse1bOOAfy7RDk Vq2VNn3xxJa3CSiHXO+8M/H48RJaN92ntcVpJVeh8VJ/ygmK17/z6x5FCd7bbNPF LNzC+AY2ZBg2uWf219C7i5EH7C8Vndez/EaucUppg3Fq86BbVDLMe1j6xy1xC07G zPOkzPTZd0AaNOJ8iPxx8DmMHexhaK4dKDW38LWUHQJy9xAb7VFVIYhtM+E8MgYd IFFTgBHTYxCW1sLbRE1erpiafOI8XyGY1zZkAu9oO3t5c/QD+Yknd1uxuhK99zZZ QwCCJwfrNw9UdiWSWYM569qH4LPRHfX1jQDHmrjwjwmpdF2DQ1pMUFetv4tknIqB ofksrbEfCUSjDSuPs/aE2Tq4fXFoC4miXJayhJbc7CJlFumRAS/TuJqcOFQrqKGl pq2NOg92hYC/s3Kwmh6NOmDHbHzg86YNX7xYHYz+JnuRrn3XvEjH/NFzoUcW717m
4L2

Hi Mike,

Quoting Mike Gabriel (2021-12-12 13:53:55)

the src:package ayatana-indicator-messages contains bin:pkgs (libmessagingmenu*) that have the same name as Ubuntu's src:pkg indicator-messages.

The src:pkg indicator-messages has a higher version number than ayatana-indicator-messages and thus the latter fails to be imported
into Ubuntu.

See: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1000801

The solution for this probably is bumping the epoch of the package
version to 1:0.9.x-y. Any objections to this by anyone?

Bumping the epoch to 1 would be sufficient, right?

Binary packages need not use same versions as source package.

Instead of introducing an epoch you could pass option -v to
dpkg-gencontrol via dh_gencontrol.

See https://salsa.debian.org/js-team/jsbundle-web-interfaces/-/blob/debian/master/debian/rules#L65
for an example - notice that the source version is appended to ensure
that binary packages get incremented with each new source release.


- Jonas

--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private --==============ˆ98981783557925746=MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: signature
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"; charset="us-ascii"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEn+Ppw2aRpp/1PMaELHwxRsGgASEFAmG1+IgACgkQLHwxRsGg ASEqFxAAjUJxxYQSvDIbVnnAL7Xe83Maz/+R1Z5oK8ZDfwL8kLJ0RkYuBZSaM7Jz 0JaQtV+kFyqcfzq18Tn0E6VV08bW+a/5fuynE81OwLvAeHMy5VfeODk1FPW3aoMZ MdLttdaqHl4sf7i/ppFYTNaXw3ZYfOAXCyw5wpqMAi3xGMqc6YcyR2xSzJcTh+/T rMDxuP0ht3W/HSVBRkgncuaDUASMubvzPJeOn/am6pK+xUHkQ1TCJtl1noBoHg3S RQ5sPPg5sLDSozD+OkbGABoo4XeTXoatLQUcFhPz+SjK9EeEs+gZ2cGy7vFJwN4E YUoOOJz/fD221dthsbdETwDNqFO/T5vbX3NmpqLPvdLNigZyG1cVLU+FOjDaI1ja P0VA6qDuEtrJlfZKEp6u3vHCNmA4MmZuZNo6FNRb+C4X6NHCn7+yaex0yy9WBJvF C0xGd6XTPaF+OXzIwEZC8m9ehqpR5+TKvQhPmvh7afLpV6jg6VKXO5PVTy6jB5aS CFxGykow3SA8eEQn4

This message is in MIME format and has been PGP signed.

HI Jonas,

On So 12 Dez 2021 14:26:35 CET, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

Hi Mike,

Quoting Mike Gabriel (2021-12-12 13:53:55)

the src:package ayatana-indicator-messages contains bin:pkgs
(libmessagingmenu*) that have the same name as Ubuntu's src:pkg
indicator-messages.

The src:pkg indicator-messages has a higher version number than
ayatana-indicator-messages and thus the latter fails to be imported
into Ubuntu.

See: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1000801

The solution for this probably is bumping the epoch of the package
version to 1:0.9.x-y. Any objections to this by anyone?

Bumping the epoch to 1 would be sufficient, right?

Binary packages need not use same versions as source package.

Instead of introducing an epoch you could pass option -v to
dpkg-gencontrol via dh_gencontrol.

See https://salsa.debian.org/js-team/jsbundle-web-interfaces/-/blob/debian/master/debian/rules#L65
for an example - notice that the source version is appended to ensure
that binary packages get incremented with each new source release.

Yeah, I am aware of that possibility. However, I don't really feel
like inheriting the versioning from the Ubuntu package (year.month) in
the Debian package and be forced to carry that one along with me in
the future forever...

I'd rather use the upstream version (of ayatana-indicator-messages)
and be done with it.

Mike
--

mike gabriel aka sunweaver (Debian Developer)
mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148
landline: +49 (4351) 486 14 27

GnuPG Fingerprint: 9BFB AEE8 6C0A A5FF BF22 0782 9AF4 6B30 2577 1B31
mail: sunweaver@debian.org, http://sunweavers.net


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEm/uu6GwKpf+/IgeCmvRrMCV3GzEFAmG1/WwACgkQmvRrMCV3 GzExLQ//eRBOELeROgUHdWM9rbh55hQdHUl1yj3gpAZ4Iq5+O9ZrbU9G+qm51gMm EWHrGuiCFPoQwQ8LtsR1HRDw+KhLg06sqFEEVwVsuczhFsIK1HHL9ahPVgHL9+rF AsP5YJEEoXTiauNYQZ+Hqp1l34OYCXbiVmhgf7JtbahExNNfV9R2yKg+lpd/fBsD xU3TaYTszvQDxWXBMgS1ZIue8OlPYkGP7HR9jSXI2+EUQxVnhJ31k8dHVXiFoQqt HTj96PzSRYNlEBLUvWdQACkt/Lvn8mtgcCRsq8aDs57YPuENyTey1iztns9me7mN TCfXvpjfHiE9qlVGtpHyeXDSQ7NhSNsAN6cUg6HUU0/9F2uusMhDOdEBsfdCZXIQ rJsgpKJydqqlm8kgXLPKZHlXNyhXEstQl7GXXVWyCq/H0UA+nWUzt2pd67kM/CgV zAFDMRgPcvufLcDzgVzGYwh57RvQLFHY5THuXjvE/6fD70IcmJ6PHERPigUHZPL9 jXm/ae5gpvFAK4fW/gX7vbdrLoIlJ+mefl9rinCwFrUyrVn4aDyBOroM/v73bCz0 ic3ocQ7f41mXQQgTeduwnJlsDFMTkdYXDTJBXeojiOoehmpxQlsOJG2sm4T9vt3c
CUx

Quoting Mike Gabriel (2021-12-12 14:47:26)

HI Jonas,

On So 12 Dez 2021 14:26:35 CET, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

Hi Mike,

Quoting Mike Gabriel (2021-12-12 13:53:55)

the src:package ayatana-indicator-messages contains bin:pkgs
(libmessagingmenu*) that have the same name as Ubuntu's src:pkg
indicator-messages.

The src:pkg indicator-messages has a higher version number than
ayatana-indicator-messages and thus the latter fails to be imported
into Ubuntu.

See: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1000801

The solution for this probably is bumping the epoch of the package
version to 1:0.9.x-y. Any objections to this by anyone?

Bumping the epoch to 1 would be sufficient, right?

Binary packages need not use same versions as source package.

Instead of introducing an epoch you could pass option -v to
dpkg-gencontrol via dh_gencontrol.

See https://salsa.debian.org/js-team/jsbundle-web-interfaces/-/blob/debian/master/debian/rules#L65
for an example - notice that the source version is appended to ensure
that binary packages get incremented with each new source release.

Yeah, I am aware of that possibility. However, I don't really feel
like inheriting the versioning from the Ubuntu package (year.month) in
the Debian package and be forced to carry that one along with me in
the future forever...

I'd rather use the upstream version (of ayatana-indicator-messages)
and be done with it.

Epochs should be avoided when possible, because they (by design) are
hidden in some interfaces, and therefore can cause surprises (e.g.
intending to tighten to "newer-than-some-version" but forgetting to
include the epoch - and not noticing the mistake until after the freeze
many moons later).

If you don't want to keep track of Ubuntu changing their versions
because you know that yours should always beat theirs, then how about statically setting binary version higher yet within zero'th epoch?

dh_gencontrol -- -v9999~$(DEB_VERSION)


- Jonas

--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private --==============x74811027077766933=MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: signature
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"; charset="us-ascii"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEn+Ppw2aRpp/1PMaELHwxRsGgASEFAmG2EZgACgkQLHwxRsGg ASFCBhAAh8kk0NzZGXjZyIi31DASqRlHo/IZIZC/uQAUbwnL/7pz6/a0li9vxJaY 4wcw1ZVUBpP891iiMILE8JGuyKW/jNY7oUm8RpXpjh1NKs0Q9Q2KDGE000LWKaE3 OJSIq3zMcXaYRexSjV3aRAt07QD6J3VwWt3NQAawmBDW65snN6HbqXK2xX6hTcns 9Vy+MiHgQoJdIIh+0UmKlFOXJ1zVkhHNwq3+08l1eYLWVNGXQZZ0omkO8b0KWUin 2RRs1wMLag6DTI+IWjjcPX8JIA+ocSC34SIpPGhXWsPVfqV9ZEMdsKxhVrZY7A5D bQuZMiEcNT7Cc8f1c4TLuuxAuDA95gUzRooUHFMZDwAakiT90fiqhF69dNewc/cZ X4bteiW3JEYbAlkdPvE4W0SSZ/r/LABBxLKlfpy/Do8f1Hh7y+UTrikDHBrNVp5M RhleymVHU7Dm+Zq9c8QGU35CcJcwTAg7RTrFotpB3y75ZEY7hUemmbAhKxLn4din E6d/7XCsCLgEYui0z

On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 8:47 AM Mike Gabriel <sunweaver@debian.org> wrote:

Yeah, I am aware of that possibility. However, I don't really feel
like inheriting the versioning from the Ubuntu package (year.month) in
the Debian package and be forced to carry that one along with me in
the future forever...

I'd rather use the upstream version (of ayatana-indicator-messages)
and be done with it.

What you're asking is unusual because:
1. You *are* the upstream maintainer and control its version numbering.
2. You have forked the old unmaintained Ubuntu project.
3. You explicitly are choosing to take over the Ubuntu binary packages.

Therefore, it seems pretty easy to me for you to just bump the
upstream version in its next release from 0.9.0 to 13.11.0 (or 14.0 or
14.9.0 or whatever higher number). Blame Ubuntu in your release notes.

That seems like the least complex way to handle this. No epochs. No
version skew between upstream and Debian. No version skew between the
Debian source package and the binary packages. No version skew between
Debian and Ubuntu. No tricky version number mangling in debian/rules.

Version numbers are cheap. It's really not a big deal to bump your
version from 0.9 to 14. After that, you don't have any obligation to
do year.month versioning.

Thanks,
Jeremy Bicha

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

This message is in MIME format and has been PGP signed.

Hi Jonas, hi all,

On So 12 Dez 2021 16:13:33 CET, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

Quoting Mike Gabriel (2021-12-12 14:47:26)

HI Jonas,

On So 12 Dez 2021 14:26:35 CET, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

Hi Mike,

Quoting Mike Gabriel (2021-12-12 13:53:55)

the src:package ayatana-indicator-messages contains bin:pkgs
(libmessagingmenu*) that have the same name as Ubuntu's src:pkg
indicator-messages.

The src:pkg indicator-messages has a higher version number than
ayatana-indicator-messages and thus the latter fails to be imported
into Ubuntu.

See: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1000801

The solution for this probably is bumping the epoch of the package
version to 1:0.9.x-y. Any objections to this by anyone?

Bumping the epoch to 1 would be sufficient, right?

Binary packages need not use same versions as source package.

Instead of introducing an epoch you could pass option -v to
dpkg-gencontrol via dh_gencontrol.

See

https://salsa.debian.org/js-team/jsbundle-web-interfaces/-/blob/debian/master/debian/rules#L65

for an example - notice that the source version is appended to ensure
that binary packages get incremented with each new source release.

Yeah, I am aware of that possibility. However, I don't really feel
like inheriting the versioning from the Ubuntu package (year.month) in
the Debian package and be forced to carry that one along with me in
the future forever...

I'd rather use the upstream version (of ayatana-indicator-messages)
and be done with it.

Epochs should be avoided when possible, because they (by design) are
hidden in some interfaces, and therefore can cause surprises (e.g.
intending to tighten to "newer-than-some-version" but forgetting to
include the epoch - and not noticing the mistake until after the freeze
many moons later).

If you don't want to keep track of Ubuntu changing their versions
because you know that yours should always beat theirs, then how about statically setting binary version higher yet within zero'th epoch?

dh_gencontrol -- -v9999~$(DEB_VERSION)

- Jonas

Thanks, Jonas, I'll consider that v9999 thingy...

Do others have an opinion on this?

Mike

--

mike gabriel aka sunweaver (Debian Developer)
mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148
landline: +49 (4351) 486 14 27

GnuPG Fingerprint: 9BFB AEE8 6C0A A5FF BF22 0782 9AF4 6B30 2577 1B31
mail: sunweaver@debian.org, http://sunweavers.net


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEm/uu6GwKpf+/IgeCmvRrMCV3GzEFAmG2P7sACgkQmvRrMCV3 GzFrWw/+NgMdO2N+tQgjjecMvPO4+KnnQI5TPoGCH65+cYyIZmcU2apkPZK8R1Y8 V1GXQMnwm+WFK/4mFmTPyBf8CFuwfRLBaO+BRX50UNSpnms5ceiMQ0YziWoJdtOa m6TmOhBcqU69Q7CmBc3zq2pacCcHlVNHdrtPvqnljDND6WapRqiTT+P0kDZTEHr5 +jJ9GDd2KKZxpMcT/vpvMOHPc9ufLCBfy6vUtJyX1B1ahUclT49EOHcjN0o3oIl6 hkkbTOMK9tDFGOEGjWEONbMJR+x67cLhPDJAwMmGWGzKwlsNxt1Drvx8pwh1aoTY xzeWqbSU0yfym7l2jRf7gvmr5/nQ+X3ukOXYhTfBOUfgrH4QgnG9SZ5dlX9ZtI7b W4zbZl+GKUFAj51F1MHlHpGPxRKNM4NhgHax5l0nax6ghGTJIDRxGJ1Je22fUYdv yXiPqIQzKlwpJTRmovEqHm046KBSryJ+RkgE9rmAIMwfRGaM0Xf45s5MZ6iUs4Uo xemENI2QOtutnp3GkRPPSAp9gXz+YKqliyprUoVc0Wu9az6raH139h+89tySscPB QkjOLc2jG4fvMye4/ae06lv49eEqrBt7DHrTfGyQotUa+4DTxm28DBHjaDuDzvCN
NH5

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --------------eY29gEHBr8Qp2LfzyG8eiFbJ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

DQpPbiAxMi4xMi4yMSAxOToyMiwgSmVyZW15IEJpY2hhIHdyb3RlOg0KPiBUaGVyZWZvcmUs IGl0IHNlZW1zIHByZXR0eSBlYXN5IHRvIG1lIGZvciB5b3UgdG8ganVzdCBidW1wIHRoZQ0K PiB1cHN0cmVhbSB2ZXJzaW9uIGluIGl0cyBuZXh0IHJlbGVhc2UgZnJvbSAwLjkuMCB0byAx My4xMS4wIChvciAxNC4wIG9yDQo+IDE0LjkuMCBvciB3aGF0ZXZlciBoaWdoZXIgbnVtYmVy KS4gQmxhbWUgVWJ1bnR1IGluIHlvdXIgcmVsZWFzZSBub3Rlcy4NCj4gDQo+IFRoYXQgc2Vl bXMgbGlrZSB0aGUgbGVhc3QgY29tcGxleCB3YXkgdG8gaGFuZGxlIHRoaXMuIE5vIGVwb2No cy4gTm8NCj4gdmVyc2lvbiBza2V3IGJldHdlZW4gdXBzdHJlYW0gYW5kIERlYmlhbi4gTm8g dmVyc2lvbiBza2V3IGJldHdlZW4gdGhlDQo+IERlYmlhbiBzb3VyY2UgcGFja2FnZSBhbmQg dGhlIGJpbmFyeSBwYWNrYWdlcy4gTm8gdmVyc2lvbiBza2V3IGJldHdlZW4NCj4gRGViaWFu IGFuZCBVYnVudHUuIE5vIHRyaWNreSB2ZXJzaW9uIG51bWJlciBtYW5nbGluZyBpbiBkZWJp YW4vcnVsZXMuDQo+IA0KPiBWZXJzaW9uIG51bWJlcnMgYXJlIGNoZWFwLiBJdCdzIHJlYWxs eSBub3QgYSBiaWcgZGVhbCB0byBidW1wIHlvdXINCj4gdmVyc2lvbiBmcm9tIDAuOSB0byAx NC4gQWZ0ZXIgdGhhdCwgeW91IGRvbid0IGhhdmUgYW55IG9ibGlnYXRpb24gdG8NCj4gZG8g eWVhci5tb250aCB2ZXJzaW9uaW5nLg0KDQpZZWFoLCBJIHRoaW5rIHRoaXMgaXMgdGhlIHdh eSB0byBnby4gRXNwZWNpYWxseSBzaW5jZSB0aGlzIGFsc28gYWZmZWN0cyANCm90aGVyIGRp c3Ryb3Mgd2hpY2ggd2lsbCBhbHNvIGhhdmUgdGhlIHNhbWUgaXNzdWUuDQoNCklmIGF5YXRh bmEtaW5kaWNhdG9yLW1lc3NhZ2VzIGlzIHRoZSBuYXR1cmFsIHN1Y2Nlc3NvciBvZiANCmlu ZGljYXRvci1tZXNzYWdlcyBpdCBzaG91bGQganVzdCBtYWtlIHN1cmUgdG8gaGF2ZSBhIGhp Z2hlciAodXBzdHJlYW0pIA0KdmVyc2lvbiBudW1iZXIuDQoNCkFuZCB0aGVyZSBpcyBwcmlv ciBhcnQgaGVyZS4gRS5nLiBzeXN0ZW1kIGJ1bXBlZCBpdCdzIHZlcnNpb24gYnVtcGVyIA0K ZnJvbSB2NDQgdG8gdjE4MyBhZnRlciBpdCBoYWQgbWVyZ2VkIHRoZSB1ZGV2IHNvdXJjZXMg KHdoaWNoIGF0IHRoYXQgDQpwb2ludCB3ZXJlIGF0IHZlcnNpb24gdjE4MikuDQoNClJlZ2Fy ZHMsDQpNaWNoYWVsDQo=

--------------eY29gEHBr8Qp2LfzyG8eiFbJ--

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

wsF5BAABCAAjFiEECbOsLssWnJBDRcxUauHfDWCPItwFAmG2TFsFAwAAAAAACgkQauHfDWCPItw5 wA/+L0id6YXyjQsyhG+X0o31Yl2Q2PavMFmkFVRqMdkVzsFittfMYcOB79zvPZfvOadisYase0o1 s9cNY0s7UvL02GsIZMnBK/0BRQZfMPViIQ8OC+a219qwqtg5BYVUgUFYHkiEwZ8GSQjFiBAZ4E/u h24J/UFKTkoPxmtipz9EeqnHqkC3JITLpz1KmM0909VkTCJnfq6g9jlqFxq9Vh8ygtCg3ADQ5WNf CxeNP28zeqMbNTKuti16H9PmsolwlhqH91DU9NkHok/FC5XrmrXa4xHjrldYujYLSbdw5Slcdkv0 GccFfznmIDsDGniQ5I5uUbt/1UaqH5DZ3ud3Q5HcW7STYIzUxULgP0WGYyiwKzbBR4y59dFPENSO /e2DxbtDqnH3BkOjy+7ubk0ajOwy6daZS1FJp7WToL4H4xkzohKiwbNgDfz0gpPUETfEpDiL/0GG tX7mIzPAJdbihCsi1Ag/Gu3x+/J1DLSpXvuVdp7eYF6nW8E8dVIvu6v8IxttaHUiNHOcWtD9NPfV BVCuo5Qe1Or58gnwnwQhZkIQwcwi+YiIwpX/K90T2KiGMf3cZBrEWcajbvcC9XDiXL2xspmx/xDG zqVLCrU+KQKSGONJv7SxX4uwtLUMQ4iw3X3e/NdXye0Ni8JN7nNL8FogmvDCZ+YeBZ+r6nd/9HM2 veE=
=hNai
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

This message is in MIME format and has been PGP signed.

Hi Jeremy, hi Michael,

On So 12 Dez 2021 20:24:11 CET, Michael Biebl wrote:

On 12.12.21 19:22, Jeremy Bicha wrote:

Therefore, it seems pretty easy to me for you to just bump the
upstream version in its next release from 0.9.0 to 13.11.0 (or 14.0 or
14.9.0 or whatever higher number). Blame Ubuntu in your release notes.

That seems like the least complex way to handle this. No epochs. No
version skew between upstream and Debian. No version skew between the
Debian source package and the binary packages. No version skew between
Debian and Ubuntu. No tricky version number mangling in debian/rules.

Version numbers are cheap. It's really not a big deal to bump your
version from 0.9 to 14. After that, you don't have any obligation to
do year.month versioning.

Yeah, I think this is the way to go. Especially since this also
affects other distros which will also have the same issue.

If ayatana-indicator-messages is the natural successor of indicator-messages it should just make sure to have a higher
(upstream) version number.

And there is prior art here. E.g. systemd bumped it's version bumper
from v44 to v183 after it had merged the udev sources (which at that
point were at version v182).

We will to a year.month.revision versioning scheme for all Ayatana
System Indicators coming with the next release series.

Thanks for your feedback.

Mike
--

DAS-NETZWERKTEAM
c\o Technik- und Ökologiezentrum Eckernförde
Mike Gabriel, Marienthaler Str. 17, 24340 Eckernförde
mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148
landline: +49 (4351) 850 8940

GnuPG Fingerprint: 9BFB AEE8 6C0A A5FF BF22 0782 9AF4 6B30 2577 1B31
mail: mike.gabriel@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEm/uu6GwKpf+/IgeCmvRrMCV3GzEFAmG3GgsACgkQmvRrMCV3 GzH0pA/9FGPu02GF3TvS3Q8FDUZr6ok+Iimo9LsmDR6wJF8FaikGoXkQQqRnqix2 ghvBdfTqKQ6AaYjFTZSjibfx9PX4q0WIjw8wxTmjjc32viPwqF+WDQafc6IjVoAr meVGKt4+K5W1UZN4U75RS0hbgmJJyAqHKwZCSx/kBavnue83hcJ5FIYrVW0eZDJA hMWHDP294vl1JzO1molbXFl0y+2QOMc7wrK0MaPDMwNjfRCjD7hoxBCJi76cLaWo GwgB6E6oNNhLBykhYla5AhRTglAItVjZL9DPcUaDQKLCBgxV0QeyJWvjBtIi/Fbu UV+VLOBD5nafqk7Xc20FRoV1SWyiwSqnAi1e9Phxqw2v65f3Ha/NqQbLBbnKHxdO IG6KWYZGASEsZ84XfYCu1+WPBU+AzNMq+cyQTNY/dVA+6JEyyT0bHKWeEjs8Smbb xdDuaplt0Ek9mJwCxqOMdVArdDGWnnI21XGFj4DJtGttIfhS7xyEy3aWCVFqI9AK NnJYASwLAt5zqieCJNSAz/Vnv8x36SZ8+e6HLqvkAufZ