> Epochs are just for when things go wrong. Read the packaging manual,
> section 5, carefully.
That's when I got confused :) Not by the manual, by the fact that KDE
packages use (or used to use) epochs while all my tests show it's okay...
Thanks for the clarification that I can do that...
YA
rsions 1.6.20001010-1 lt 1.7-1; echo $?
0
bash$
> I want to package something based on date (development
> snapshot) but w/o epochs (as I'm not sure where to start the epoch and how
> to drop it later). I tried these examples with dpkg --compare-versions and
> they were fine, but I
Hi,
I'm getting these messages from spkg-shlibs:
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: could not find any packages for (libicu-uc.so.1)
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: unable to find dependency information for shared
library libicu-uc (soname 1, path , dependency field Depends)
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: unable to fi
e examples with dpkg --compare-versions and
they were fine, but I also found out that I could have
1.6-20001010-1 < 1.6-20001010-2
and that confused me, because I though that shouldn't work w/o epochs?! If
that works, why are the KDE packages using an epoch (4) instead of just
2.0-
> Epochs are just for when things go wrong. Read the packaging manual,
> section 5, carefully.
That's when I got confused :) Not by the manual, by the fact that KDE
packages use (or used to use) epochs while all my tests show it's okay...
Thanks for the clarification that I can do that...
YA
rsions 1.6.20001010-1 lt 1.7-1; echo $?
0
bash$
> I want to package something based on date (development
> snapshot) but w/o epochs (as I'm not sure where to start the epoch and how
> to drop it later). I tried these examples with dpkg --compare-versions and
> they were fine, but I
Hi,
I'm getting these messages from spkg-shlibs:
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: could not find any packages for (libicu-uc.so.1)
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: unable to find dependency information for shared
library libicu-uc (soname 1, path , dependency field Depends)
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: unable to f
e examples with dpkg --compare-versions and
they were fine, but I also found out that I could have
1.6-20001010-1 < 1.6-20001010-2
and that confused me, because I though that shouldn't work w/o epochs?! If
that works, why are the KDE packages using an epoch (4) instead of just
2.0-
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 05:17:35PM +, Gerd Knorr wrote:
> What is the recommended way to deal with bugs which are present in
> the potato package but already fixed in woody?
There is none. You're free to keep them open, or close them.
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination an
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 05:17:35PM +, Gerd Knorr wrote:
> What is the recommended way to deal with bugs which are present in
> the potato package but already fixed in woody?
If you're talking about reporting/bug-tracking, I just suggested a
'stableonly' BTS tag on debian-devel . (No one seem
Hi,
What is the recommended way to deal with bugs which are present in
the potato package but already fixed in woody?
Gerd
--
Protecting the children is a good way to get a lot of adults who cant
stand up for themselves.-- seen in some sig on /.
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 05:17:35PM +, Gerd Knorr wrote:
> What is the recommended way to deal with bugs which are present in
> the potato package but already fixed in woody?
There is none. You're free to keep them open, or close them.
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination a
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 05:17:35PM +, Gerd Knorr wrote:
> What is the recommended way to deal with bugs which are present in
> the potato package but already fixed in woody?
If you're talking about reporting/bug-tracking, I just suggested a
'stableonly' BTS tag on debian-devel . (No one see
Hi,
What is the recommended way to deal with bugs which are present in
the potato package but already fixed in woody?
Gerd
--
Protecting the children is a good way to get a lot of adults who cant
stand up for themselves.-- seen in some sig on /.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
14 matches
Mail list logo
