On Aug 23, 2006, at 4:42 PM, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
chas williams - CONTRACTOR wrote:
In message <Pine.GSO.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Der
rick J Brashear writes:
I guess you didn't read the ticket I merged yours into. No,
something
dislikes "1.4.2rc1" as a version string. I am still trying to
figure out
what I should call this so I can fix it.
apple is peculiar about the format for CFBundleVersion. see
http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1132.html
We understand the format requirements. The question is what the
version
number should be. Before we went to 1.4.0 the version number
stayed at
1.3.99 throughout all of the release candidates. Now that we are at
1.4.2 it is unclear what release candidates should use.
On Windows, the version numbers are 1.4.0200 for the initial release
candidate and then 1.4.0201, 1.4.0202, etc. until we are finished.
The problem isn't the version numbers. Its the fact that the
Info.plist and the actual binary must agree on the version number. In
the published 1.4.2rc1 dist, the binary thinks its version 1.4.2b3
and the Info.plist says its 1.4.2rc1. That's the problem that's
preventing it from loading.
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
