Re: glibc_2.0.7pre1-3 uploaded to master

On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Joel Klecker wrote: > At 12:34 -0500 1998-03-03, Dale Scheetz wrote: > >I understood this when I did it, and expected to identify the released > >version as 2.0.7rel for this very reason. > > I consider that *much* uglier than an epoch. But if you want to avoid using an epoch

Re: glibc_2.0.7pre1-3 uploaded to master

At 12:34 -0500 1998-03-03, Dale Scheetz wrote: >I understood this when I did it, and expected to identify the released >version as 2.0.7rel for this very reason. I consider that *much* uglier than an epoch. -- Joel "Espy" KleckerDebian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: glibc_2.0.7pre1-3 uploaded to master

On Tue, Mar 03, 1998 at 06:52:24PM -0600, Rob Browning wrote: > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Well, nothing really, I guess ... Is it not the case that > > once you start using an epoch you can never cease? That 1:1.0.0 > > always is greater than 9.0.0? And the next time

Re: glibc_2.0.7pre1-3 uploaded to master

On Tue, Mar 03, 1998 at 06:48:28PM +, Enrique Zanardi wrote: > On Tue, Mar 03, 1998 at 10:52:13AM -0500, Christian Hudon wrote: > > > > Ugh. There really should be something in the Policy Manual against using > > 'pre'. It doesn't seem to be a widely known fact, but according to dpkg: > > > >

Re: glibc_2.0.7pre1-3 uploaded to master

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, nothing really, I guess ... Is it not the case that > once you start using an epoch you can never cease? That 1:1.0.0 > always is greater than 9.0.0? And the next time it happens the epoch > gets bumped up again. Yep. > Hmm, tha

Re: glibc_2.0.7pre1-3 uploaded to master

Hi, >>"Enrique" == Enrique Zanardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Enrique> What's wrong with using epochs? Well, nothing really, I guess ... Is it not the case that once you start using an epoch you can never cease? That 1:1.0.0 always is greater than 9.0.0? And the next time it happens t

Re: glibc_2.0.7pre1-3 uploaded to master

Enrique Zanardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What's wrong with using epochs? I guess it will be easier for our > users to find Debian's package of libc6 version 2.0.7 as > libc6_2.0.7-1.deb than as libc6_2.0.7rel-1.deb. Isn't the "rel" > stuff an unnecessary modification of the upstream version n

Re: glibc_2.0.7pre1-3 uploaded to master

On Tue, Mar 03, 1998 at 10:52:13AM -0500, Christian Hudon wrote: > > Ugh. There really should be something in the Policy Manual against using > 'pre'. It doesn't seem to be a widely known fact, but according to dpkg: > > $dpkg --compare-versions 2.0.7pre-3 lt 2.0.7-4 || echo 'Uhoh... 2.0.7pre-4 >

Re: glibc_2.0.7pre1-3 uploaded to master

On Tue, Mar 03, 1998 at 10:52:13AM -0500, Christian Hudon wrote: > On Tuesday, March 03, Dale Scheetz wrote > > > > Format: 1.5 > > Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 19:02:48 -0500 > > Source: glibc > > Binary: timezones libc6 libc6-pic libc6-dbg locales libc6-doc libc6-dev > > Architecture: source i386 all

Re: glibc_2.0.7pre1-3 uploaded to master

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Christian Hudon wrote: > On Tuesday, March 03, Dale Scheetz wrote > > > > Format: 1.5 > > Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 19:02:48 -0500 > > Source: glibc > > Binary: timezones libc6 libc6-pic libc6-dbg locales libc6-doc libc6-dev > > Architecture: s

Re: glibc_2.0.7pre1-3 uploaded to master

On Tue, 3 Mar 1998, Christian Hudon wrote: > On Tuesday, March 03, Dale Scheetz wrote > > > > Format: 1.5 > > Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 19:02:48 -0500 > > Source: glibc > > Binary: timezones libc6 libc6-pic libc6-dbg locales libc6-doc libc6-dev > > Architecture: source i386 all > > Version: 2.0.7pre

Re: glibc_2.0.7pre1-3 uploaded to master

On Tuesday, March 03, Dale Scheetz wrote > > Format: 1.5 > Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 19:02:48 -0500 > Source: glibc > Binary: timezones libc6 libc6-pic libc6-dbg locales libc6-doc libc6-dev > Architecture: source i386 all > Version: 2.0.7pre1-3 Ugh. There really should be something in the Policy Man