On 7/28/07, Jaroslaw Swierczynski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd say it's those packages' maintainers fault that they didn't make > up for pacman's bug ;) Seriously, pacman's versiom comparing functions > is buggy. Until it's fixed, such packages should be built with > force=y.
I'm sorry, but that's just untrue. Looking at the two version numbers, I have no idea which is supposed to be newer without reading the original poster's comments; certainly pacman would have no idea either. What the heck does "P1" stand for? Pacman shouldn't get bandaid on top of hack on top of kludge in order to make up for developers that come up with their own number versioning system. If it's a newer version, give it a higher version number. Anything with letters or other characters is not at all obvious. Scott _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
