On Thursday 04 December 2008 14:38, Adeodato Simó wrote: > Clamav P.S.: Was using 0.94.dfsg.1-1 instead of 0.94.1.dfsg-1 on purpose > or just a mistake? > We had 0.94.dfsg before and 0.94.1.dfsg sorts lower than 0.94.dfsg, so we used 0.94.dfsg.1 to get a higher version number. Scott K