Hi,
On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 19:04:44 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here is a proposed patch that also clarifies the comparison of version
> numbers a bit. Seconds?
>
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index 1c9a339..b7ac92e 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -2877,19 +2877,
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Here is a proposed patch that also clarifies the comparison of version
> numbers a bit. Seconds?
Seconded. Looks fine.
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
signature.asc
De
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I confirm that the implementation in dpkg is done in such a way that the
> lack of revision is the same than a revision set to "0". Exactly like
> the lack of epoch is equal to an epoch of 0.
>
> Maybe we should say "the absence of a debian_revision c
Hi,
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> Policy 5.6.12 states:
>
>The absence of a debian_revision compares earlier than the presence
>of one
>
> However, dpkg tests return:
>
>dpkg --compare-versions 1 eq 1-0 && echo equal
>equal
I confirm that the implementation in d
Subject: debian-policy: Policy and dpkg disagree on debian revision tests.
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
*** Please type your report below this line ***
Policy 5.6.12 states:
The absence of a debian_revision compares earlier than the presence
of one
However, dpkg tests return:
5 matches
Mail list logo
