On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 03:07:44AM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> So I'd go for an epoch, but I'm still puzzled here: is 20040104:1.1-1 ok
> or should I go with 1.1.20040104-1 as I see that
>
> # if `dpkg --compare-versions 20040104:1.1-1 lt 1.2-1` ; then echo "1&
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 03:07:44AM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> So I'd go for an epoch, but I'm still puzzled here: is 20040104:1.1-1 ok
> or should I go with 1.1.20040104-1 as I see that
>
> # if `dpkg --compare-versions 20040104:1.1-1 lt 1.2-1` ; then echo "1&
On Sunday 04 January 2004 19:41, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is
> out...
If you use an epoch to solve this problem, you will be stuck with it forever.
I urge you to avoid this if you can. (You can.)
> the less ugly debian version
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 03:07:44AM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> So I'd go for an epoch, but I'm still puzzled here: is 20040104:1.1-1 ok
> or should I go with 1.1.20040104-1 as I see that
No, 1:1.1-1 is greater than any version number without an epoch.
2:* is greater than an
On Sunday 04 January 2004 19:41, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is
> out...
If you use an epoch to solve this problem, you will be stuck with it forever.
I urge you to avoid this if you can. (You can.)
> the less ugly debian version
Mattia Dongili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 02:05:25AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> Mattia Dongili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is
>> > out...
>> [...]
>> > the less ugly debian version name
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 03:07:44AM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> So I'd go for an epoch, but I'm still puzzled here: is 20040104:1.1-1 ok
> or should I go with 1.1.20040104-1 as I see that
No, 1:1.1-1 is greater than any version number without an epoch.
2:* is greater than an
he rc one appear older than the releases.
I'd like to continue to package also -rc versions, but since I'm also
upstream of this package I could ask myself to use a more decent version
numbering :)
So I'd go for an epoch, but I'm still puzzled here: is 20040104:1.1-1 ok
or s
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 02:05:25AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Mattia Dongili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is
> > out...
> [...]
> > the less ugly debian version name I found is *1.1.final-1*. Is it ok or
> > has anyb
Mattia Dongili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 02:05:25AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> Mattia Dongili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is
>> > out...
>> [...]
>> > the less ugly debian version name
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:41:48AM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> actually it's me who did the Stupid Thing(TM). :)
>
> I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is
> out...
>
> but
>
> # if `dpkg --compare-versions 1.1-rc-1 lt 1.1-1` ; then echo "1" ; fi
> #
>
> ouch!
Mattia Dongili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is
> out...
[...]
> the less ugly debian version name I found is *1.1.final-1*. Is it ok or
> has anybody a better suggestion?
Read the fu^Wfine policy and use an epoch.
Marc
--
$_=')
he rc one appear older than the releases.
I'd like to continue to package also -rc versions, but since I'm also
upstream of this package I could ask myself to use a more decent version
numbering :)
So I'd go for an epoch, but I'm still puzzled here: is 20040104:1.1-1 ok
or s
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 02:05:25AM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Mattia Dongili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is
> > out...
> [...]
> > the less ugly debian version name I found is *1.1.final-1*. Is it ok or
> > has anyb
Hi all,
actually it's me who did the Stupid Thing(TM). :)
I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is
out...
but
# if `dpkg --compare-versions 1.1-rc-1 lt 1.1-1` ; then echo "1" ; fi
#
ouch! I'm looking around for similar problems (I _can't_ be the first
:)) but stil
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:41:48AM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> actually it's me who did the Stupid Thing(TM). :)
>
> I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is
> out...
>
> but
>
> # if `dpkg --compare-versions 1.1-rc-1 lt 1.1-1` ; then echo "1" ; fi
> #
>
> ouch!
Mattia Dongili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is
> out...
[...]
> the less ugly debian version name I found is *1.1.final-1*. Is it ok or
> has anybody a better suggestion?
Read the fu^Wfine policy and use an epoch.
Marc
--
$_=')
Hi all,
actually it's me who did the Stupid Thing(TM). :)
I packaged cpufreqd version 1.1-rc1 and called it 1.1-rc-1, now 1.1 is
out...
but
# if `dpkg --compare-versions 1.1-rc-1 lt 1.1-1` ; then echo "1" ; fi
#
ouch! I'm looking around for similar problems (I _can't_ be the first
:)) but stil
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:39:47PM +0100, Marcos Mayorga Aguirre <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any trick to continue without installing in my system a library
> version from unstable?
> In other words: Could I generate an unstable debian package which depends on
> unstable packages alrea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello & happy new year
I am trying to debianize a library (imlib3d) and I am using a stable debian
distro.
My problem is the following:
This library depends on libgsl0 >=1.3.0, but the provided one by my apt-get is
1.1.1
so I can't finish the ./con
El dom, 04-01-2004 a las 10:15, GCS escribió:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 04:25:56PM +0100, Daniel Pecos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Hi everybody and happy new year!
> Thanks, I wish you the same!
>
> > Name: gURLChecker
> > License: GPL
> > Short Description: URL checker for
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:39:47PM +0100, Marcos Mayorga Aguirre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Is there any trick to continue without installing in my system a library
> version from unstable?
> In other words: Could I generate an unstable debian package which depends on
> unstable packages alrea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello & happy new year
I am trying to debianize a library (imlib3d) and I am using a stable debian
distro.
My problem is the following:
This library depends on libgsl0 >=1.3.0, but the provided one by my apt-get is
1.1.1
so I can't finish the ./con
El dom, 04-01-2004 a las 10:15, GCS escribió:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 04:25:56PM +0100, Daniel Pecos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi everybody and happy new year!
> Thanks, I wish you the same!
>
> > Name: gURLChecker
> > License: GPL
> > Short Description: URL checker for GNO
On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 17:29, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Martin Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.01.03.1723 +0100]:
> > I want to adopt wmweather+ and made a new package containing the new
> > upstream version 2.5 (we have 2.4 in unstable). This new version fixes
> > two BTS-bugs, so I am
also sprach Martin Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.01.03.1723 +0100]:
> I want to adopt wmweather+ and made a new package containing the new
> upstream version 2.5 (we have 2.4 in unstable). This new version fixes
> two BTS-bugs, so I am looking for a sponsor to upload this package. You
> can find
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:37:20PM +0100, Dennis Stampfer wrote:
> I need to split up timeoutd into two packages, because timeoutd-x11
> needs xlibs and timeoutd doesn't. (maybe users want to use timeoutd
> on a machine not running X)
Policy 11.8.1:
Programs that can be configured with supp
On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 17:29, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Martin Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.01.03.1723 +0100]:
> > I want to adopt wmweather+ and made a new package containing the new
> > upstream version 2.5 (we have 2.4 in unstable). This new version fixes
> > two BTS-bugs, so I am
Hi!
I need to split up timeoutd into two packages, because timeoutd-x11
needs xlibs and timeoutd doesn't. (maybe users want to use timeoutd
on a machine not running X)
I am not very experienced with multi-binary packages. This is my
first multi-binary and my first package which was single-bin b
also sprach Martin Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.01.03.1723 +0100]:
> I want to adopt wmweather+ and made a new package containing the new
> upstream version 2.5 (we have 2.4 in unstable). This new version fixes
> two BTS-bugs, so I am looking for a sponsor to upload this package. You
> can find
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:37:20PM +0100, Dennis Stampfer wrote:
> I need to split up timeoutd into two packages, because timeoutd-x11
> needs xlibs and timeoutd doesn't. (maybe users want to use timeoutd
> on a machine not running X)
Policy 11.8.1:
Programs that can be configured with supp
Hi!
I need to split up timeoutd into two packages, because timeoutd-x11
needs xlibs and timeoutd doesn't. (maybe users want to use timeoutd
on a machine not running X)
I am not very experienced with multi-binary packages. This is my
first multi-binary and my first package which was single-bin b
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 04:25:56PM +0100, Daniel Pecos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi everybody and happy new year!
Thanks, I wish you the same!
> Name: gURLChecker
> License: GPL
> Short Description: URL checker for GNOME2
> Long Description: gURLChecker is a GNOME2 tool th
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 04:25:56PM +0100, Daniel Pecos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi everybody and happy new year!
Thanks, I wish you the same!
> Name: gURLChecker
> License: GPL
> Short Description: URL checker for GNOME2
> Long Description: gURLChecker is a GNOME2 tool tha
34 matches
Mail list logo
