On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi,
>
> David Aguilar wrote:
>> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>>> Virtually all packaging guidelines would prefer 1.8.4~rc1, over
>>> 1.8.4.rc1 or 1.8.4-rc1, so it makes sense to use that instead.
>>>
>>> In particular, the only packaging we
Hi,
David Aguilar wrote:
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Virtually all packaging guidelines would prefer 1.8.4~rc1, over
>> 1.8.4.rc1 or 1.8.4-rc1, so it makes sense to use that instead.
>>
>> In particular, the only packaging we provide, git.spec, generates a
>> wrong version, because git-1.8.4 <
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 4:56 PM, David Aguilar wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>> Virtually all packaging guidelines would prefer 1.8.4~rc1, over
>> 1.8.4.rc1 or 1.8.4-rc1, so it makes sense to use that instead.
>>
>> In particular, the only packaging we provi
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> Virtually all packaging guidelines would prefer 1.8.4~rc1, over
> 1.8.4.rc1 or 1.8.4-rc1, so it makes sense to use that instead.
>
> In particular, the only packaging we provide, git.spec, generates a
> wrong version, because git-1.8.4 <
Virtually all packaging guidelines would prefer 1.8.4~rc1, over
1.8.4.rc1 or 1.8.4-rc1, so it makes sense to use that instead.
In particular, the only packaging we provide, git.spec, generates a
wrong version, because git-1.8.4 < git-1.8.4.rc1, changing to ~rc1 fixes
the problem as it's considered
5 matches
Mail list logo