On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 10:50:09AM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
> But... Wouldn't it be nice to have dpkg understand "alpha/beta" in version
> numbers?
It'll be in dpkg 1.10, although it's not clear whether it'll be valid to
use it until that makes it into a stable release.
--
Colin Watson
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 10:50:09AM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
> But... Wouldn't it be nice to have dpkg understand "alpha/beta" in version
> numbers?
It'll be in dpkg 1.10, although it's not clear whether it'll be valid to
use it until that makes it into a stable release.
--
Colin Watson
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 03:09:58PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> > > > > The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as
> 2.0beta5.
> > > > > For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
> > > > >
> > > > > What would be the best numbering scheme for the next bet
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 03:09:58PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> > > > The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
> > > > For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
> > > >
> > > > What would be the best numbering scheme for the next beta series to
Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:46:19 -0500
> christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:48:57PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>> > > The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
>> > > For the final
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:46:19 -0500
christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:48:57PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > > The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
> > > For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
> > >
> > > W
le lun 25-02-2002 à 14:09, Rick Younie a écrit :
> Just a new version would work in this case. Only debhelper 3.4.9
> was buggy and it was only in the archive for a day or two. I'm
> sure all buildds have upgraded now.
>
> Nice catch, BTW. I wonder how many maintainers noticed the problem.
>
Roland Mas wrote:
> Josselin Mouette (2002-02-25 14:00:29 +0100) :
>
>> I have a problem with the frozen-bubble-lib package : due to a debhelper
>> bug, it has been built as an empty package on two arches (sparc and
>> powerpc), and marked as successfully built by buildd.
>> Is there a good way to
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 03:09:58PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> > > > > The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as
> 2.0beta5.
> > > > > For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
> > > > >
> > > > > What would be the best numbering scheme for the next be
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 03:09:58PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
> > > > The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
> > > > For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
> > > >
> > > > What would be the best numbering scheme for the next beta series t
Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:46:19 -0500
> christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:48:57PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
>> > > The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
>> > > For the fina
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:46:19 -0500
christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:48:57PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > > The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
> > > For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
> > >
> > >
le lun 25-02-2002 à 14:09, Rick Younie a écrit :
> Just a new version would work in this case. Only debhelper 3.4.9
> was buggy and it was only in the archive for a day or two. I'm
> sure all buildds have upgraded now.
>
> Nice catch, BTW. I wonder how many maintainers noticed the problem.
>
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 03:58:54PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> By the way, why gphoto2 instead of gphoto since 2.0 is out ?
gphoto2 is rewritten from scratch.
Not all gphoto drivers have been ported to gphoto2.
So it makes sense to keep the both packaged.
But even if I agree, this is the upst
> > (Try dpkg --compare-versions "2.0.99beta" lt "2.0final" ,
> >if $? is not 0 then I'm wrong)
>
> $ dpkg --compare-versions "2.0.99beta" lt "2.0final" ; echo $?
> 1
> $ dpkg --compare-versions "2.1" lt "2.0.99beta" ; echo $?
> 1
>
> >
> > I would advice that you do not provide beta v
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:48:57PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 08:35:27AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
> > For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
> >
> > What
Roland Mas wrote:
> Josselin Mouette (2002-02-25 14:00:29 +0100) :
>
>> I have a problem with the frozen-bubble-lib package : due to a debhelper
>> bug, it has been built as an empty package on two arches (sparc and
>> powerpc), and marked as successfully built by buildd.
>> Is there a good way t
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 08:35:27AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
> For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
>
> What would be the best numbering scheme for the next beta series to
> avoid the use
Hi,
The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
What would be the best numbering scheme for the next beta series to
avoid the use of final for the stable release ?
I think about 2.0.99beta1, 2.0.99beta2 ... 2.1
Josselin Mouette (2002-02-25 14:00:29 +0100) :
> I have a problem with the frozen-bubble-lib package : due to a debhelper
> bug, it has been built as an empty package on two arches (sparc and
> powerpc), and marked as successfully built by buildd.
> Is there a good way to tell buildd to rebuild th
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 03:58:54PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> By the way, why gphoto2 instead of gphoto since 2.0 is out ?
gphoto2 is rewritten from scratch.
Not all gphoto drivers have been ported to gphoto2.
So it makes sense to keep the both packaged.
But even if I agree, this is the ups
Hi,
I have a problem with the frozen-bubble-lib package : due to a debhelper
bug, it has been built as an empty package on two arches (sparc and
powerpc), and marked as successfully built by buildd.
Is there a good way to tell buildd to rebuild these arches with the new
debhelper ?
Thanks.
--
.
> > (Try dpkg --compare-versions "2.0.99beta" lt "2.0final" ,
> >if $? is not 0 then I'm wrong)
>
> $ dpkg --compare-versions "2.0.99beta" lt "2.0final" ; echo $?
> 1
> $ dpkg --compare-versions "2.1" lt "2.0.99beta" ; echo $?
> 1
>
> >
> > I would advice that you do not provide beta
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:48:57PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 08:35:27AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
> > For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
> >
> > What
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 08:35:27AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
> For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
>
> What would be the best numbering scheme for the next beta series to
> avoid the use
Hi,
The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
What would be the best numbering scheme for the next beta series to
avoid the use of final for the stable release ?
I think about 2.0.99beta1, 2.0.99beta2 ... 2.1
Josselin Mouette (2002-02-25 14:00:29 +0100) :
> I have a problem with the frozen-bubble-lib package : due to a debhelper
> bug, it has been built as an empty package on two arches (sparc and
> powerpc), and marked as successfully built by buildd.
> Is there a good way to tell buildd to rebuild t
Hi,
I have a problem with the frozen-bubble-lib package : due to a debhelper
bug, it has been built as an empty package on two arches (sparc and
powerpc), and marked as successfully built by buildd.
Is there a good way to tell buildd to rebuild these arches with the new
debhelper ?
Thanks.
--
28 matches
Mail list logo
