Re: version.dfsg

2008-11-14 Thread Pau Garcia i Quiles
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 7:50 PM, Peter Fritzsche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 14 November 2008 19:33:41 Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: >> > Why is version 1.0.18a.dfsg considered OLDER than 1.0.18.dfsg? >> > >> > $ dpkg --compare-versions 1.0.18a.dfsg-1 gt 1.0.18.dfsg-1 ; echo $? >> > 1 >> >

Re: version.dfsg

2008-11-14 Thread Peter Fritzsche
On Friday 14 November 2008 19:33:41 Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote: > > Why is version 1.0.18a.dfsg considered OLDER than 1.0.18.dfsg? > > > > $ dpkg --compare-versions 1.0.18a.dfsg-1 gt 1.0.18.dfsg-1 ; echo $? > > 1 > > > > If not adding the ".dfsg", the result is as expected (1.0.18a > 1.0.18) : > > >

Re: version.dfsg

2008-11-14 Thread Pau Garcia i Quiles
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Pau Garcia i Quiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > Why is version 1.0.18a.dfsg considered OLDER than 1.0.18.dfsg? > > $ dpkg --compare-versions 1.0.18a.dfsg-1 gt 1.0.18.dfsg-1 ; echo $? > 1 > > If not adding the ".dfsg", the result is as expected (1.0.18a >

version.dfsg

2008-11-14 Thread Pau Garcia i Quiles
Hello, Why is version 1.0.18a.dfsg considered OLDER than 1.0.18.dfsg? $ dpkg --compare-versions 1.0.18a.dfsg-1 gt 1.0.18.dfsg-1 ; echo $? 1 If not adding the ".dfsg", the result is as expected (1.0.18a > 1.0.18) : $ dpkg --compare-versions 1.0.18a-1 gt 1.0.18-1 ; echo $? 0 Is that a bug with v