also sprach tmancill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.01.23.0050 +0000]: > Sorry to have fogotten the specific rules around this, but would we ever > run into sorting issues with the revision portion of the package > version if we use only the revision number? > > i.e. is 2.1~svn-r91 > 2.1~svn-r115 ?
Good thinking, you got me there for a second. But it does not seem like this is a worry: lapse:~> dpkg --compare-versions 2.1~svn-r91 gt 2.1~svn-r115 || echo no no -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems "all i know is that i'm being sued for unfair business practices by micro$oft. hello pot? it's kettle on line two." -- michael robertson
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
