On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:52:08AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > It only makes sense to use '+maria~deb11' if you are going to
> > also release '+maria' that needs to sort after all of those, or if you are
> > using/going to use some '+maria+foo' scheme(s) that, again, need to sort
> > after a
Quoting Andrey Rahmatullin (2022-05-20 10:10:34)
>> On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:22:55AM +0300, Tuukka Pasanen wrote:
> > Thing that like to ask should revision it be more like '+maria~deb11' or
> > +mariadeb11. I understood that char '~' means it's build from upstream
> > version control not from of
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 10:22:55AM +0300, Tuukka Pasanen wrote:
> After reading couple times Debian Policy documentation packaging conventions
> and especially'5.6.12.2. Special version conventions' chapter. I'm bit
> confused about revision system. As MariaDB Foundation wants to provide
> upstream
Hi Tuukka,
* Tuukka Pasanen [2022-05-20 10:22]:
Currently revision is for example: '10.6.7+maria~buster' which
upgrades '10.6.7+maria~bullseye' which is lexical orderly lower than
first one.To understand this bug report can be found here:
https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-28628 which conta
Hello,
After reading couple times Debian Policy documentation packaging
conventions and especially'5.6.12.2. Special version conventions'
chapter. I'm bit confused about revision system. As MariaDB Foundation
wants to provide upstream packages and currently naming scheme conflicts
when upgrad
5 matches
Mail list logo
