On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 18:39 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:05 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Reindl Harald wrote:
> > > yes it is a hack but better than fake version numbers to
> > > satisfy RPM and that is *the* reason epoch exists at all
> >
> > +1
> >
> > That Ubuntu-
On Mar 3, 2014 9:39 PM, "Adam Williamson" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:05 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Reindl Harald wrote:
> > > yes it is a hack but better than fake version numbers to
> > > satisfy RPM and that is *the* reason epoch exists at all
> >
> > +1
> >
> > That Ubuntu-style ap
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:05 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Reindl Harald wrote:
> > yes it is a hack but better than fake version numbers to
> > satisfy RPM and that is *the* reason epoch exists at all
>
> +1
>
> That Ubuntu-style apples-101.reallyoranges versioning is misleading and
> against Fed
Reindl Harald wrote:
> yes it is a hack but better than fake version numbers to
> satisfy RPM and that is *the* reason epoch exists at all
+1
That Ubuntu-style apples-101.reallyoranges versioning is misleading and
against Fedora packaging guidelines.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
> You should ask upstream if this is a mistake or a misleading naming.
As per upstream note on 0.99 release - "No library changes from 1.0b3;
released as 0.99 as pip has changed behaviour from 1.4 to avoid
installing pre-release versions per
Am 02.03.2014 03:35, schrieb Christopher Meng:
> You should ask upstream if this is a mistake or a misleading naming.
> Remember try not to use epoch for packages, it's dirty hack
yes it is a hack but better than fake version numbers to
satisfy RPM and that is *the* reason epoch exists at all
You should ask upstream if this is a mistake or a misleading naming.
Remember try not to use epoch for packages, it's dirty hack.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-con
On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 15:39 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 01.03.2014 15:36, schrieb Praveen Kumar:
> > Recently Dan filled bug[0] against html5lib[1] module about new
> > upstream release but upstream put major version 0.999 which is lower
> > that it's beta version 1.0b3.
> >
> > Now If I upda
Am 01.03.2014 15:36, schrieb Praveen Kumar:
> Recently Dan filled bug[0] against html5lib[1] module about new
> upstream release but upstream put major version 0.999 which is lower
> that it's beta version 1.0b3.
>
> Now If I update spec file according to upstream release version should
> yum ab
Hi,
Recently Dan filled bug[0] against html5lib[1] module about new
upstream release but upstream put major version 0.999 which is lower
that it's beta version 1.0b3.
Now If I update spec file according to upstream release version should
yum able to identify that 0.999 > 1.0b3? or should I go ahe
10 matches
Mail list logo
