On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:41:11PM -0500, Nathaniel W. Turner wrote:
> On Sunday 04 January 2004 19:41, Mattia Dongili wrote:
[...]
> What about simply 1.1.0-1?
I'll go with that then.
> Either one is certainly better than an epoch. This way, when 1.2 is
> released,
> you can go back to simply
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 10:41:11PM -0500, Nathaniel W. Turner wrote:
> On Sunday 04 January 2004 19:41, Mattia Dongili wrote:
[...]
> What about simply 1.1.0-1?
I'll go with that then.
> Either one is certainly better than an epoch. This way, when 1.2 is released,
> you can go back to simply us
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" ; fi
> #
>
> thanks again
Epoch
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" ; fi
> #
>
> thanks again
Epoch
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 any 1:*, and so on.
--
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 any 1:*, and so on.
--
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 12:09:12PM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:41:48AM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> > actually it's me who did the Stupid Thing(TM). :)
[...]
> > the less ugly debian version name I found is *1.1.final-1*. Is it ok or
> > has anybody a better suggestion?
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
--
$_=')
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 12:09:12PM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 01:41:48AM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> > actually it's me who did the Stupid Thing(TM). :)
[...]
> > the less ugly debian version name I found is *1.1.final-1*. Is it ok or
> > has anybody a better suggestion?
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
