- Mail original -
De: "Pierre-Yves Chibon"
>Ok, another random/crazy/likely stupid idea for the same outcome: the
>possibility to go backwards in our packaging.
>What if we inverted version and release?
> So -2.1-1 become -1-2.1?
Same problem than with epoch. Does not work with third-
On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 12:31:04PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 10:33:38AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > I'm personally very in favor of this; of course my usual refrain
> > here is that we should *try* new things and have the ability
> > to back them out if they don't w
On Sat, Oct 7, 2017, at 01:26 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> At a certain point, if you want/need to do these things, it is better
> to burn it from the ground and come up with a new packaging system
> (and relearn all the second system problems involved with that).
I actually put code behind
- Mail original -
De: "Vít Ondruch"
> This does not necessarily work in case when subpackages are using
> different versions from main package. But if we always increased
> release, it would not hurt ... OTOH, it would not solve the typical
> issues with 1.0.0.rc1 updated to 1.0.0
T
Dne 7.10.2017 v 18:45 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 10:33:38AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
>>> I'm personally very in favor of this; of course my usual refrain
>>> here is that we should *try* new things and have the a
On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> If there is one thing I have learned in 20 years of dealing with
> RPMS... DON'T PLAY AROUND WITH EPOCH. It is a hack which should only
> be used as a last resort and a lot of tools are built around that
> assumption.. even if they don
On 7 October 2017 at 12:31, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 10:33:38AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
>> I'm personally very in favor of this; of course my usual refrain
>> here is that we should *try* new things and have the ability
>> to back them out if they don't work (the latter
On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 12:45:14PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Miller
>> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 10:33:38AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
>> >> I'm personally very in favor of this; of c
On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 12:45:14PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 10:33:38AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> >> I'm personally very in favor of this; of course my usual refrain
> >> here is that we should *try* new thin
On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Igor Gnatenko
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On Sat, 2017-10-07 at 12:31 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 10:33:38AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
>> > I'm personally very in favor of this; of course my usual ref
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sat, 2017-10-07 at 12:31 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 10:33:38AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > I'm personally very in favor of this; of course my usual refrain
> > here is that we should *try* new things and have the ab
On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 10:33:38AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
>> I'm personally very in favor of this; of course my usual refrain
>> here is that we should *try* new things and have the ability
>> to back them out if they don't work (the la
On 10/07/2017 06:31 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 10:33:38AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
I'm personally very in favor of this; of course my usual refrain
here is that we should *try* new things and have the ability
to back them out if they don't work (the latter bit is what t
On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 10:33:38AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> I'm personally very in favor of this; of course my usual refrain
> here is that we should *try* new things and have the ability
> to back them out if they don't work (the latter bit is what the
> current system doesn't support).
You
14 matches
Mail list logo
