On 21.01.2011 15:49, Dan McGee wrote: > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Florian Pritz > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 19.01.2011 19:54, Dan McGee wrote: >>> It is most definitely not a valid pkgver (dash) or pkgrel (not a >>> number). >> >> The dash here just seperates pkgver from pkgrel. >> >> Did a quick test with libc.so=6-x86_64_Linux as dependency and a package >> called libc.so with that pkgver and pkgrel and it worked just fine.
> Perhaps more importantly, this is still wrong (I can't run your i686 > binary on my i386 system as it seems to indicate) http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-February/010410.html > and if we do keep > it, it has *nothing* to do with a version in the normal ordering > sense- it would belong as part of the provision name. I had that before and Allan didn't like it. http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-February/010420.html -- Florian Pritz -- {flo,bluewind}@server-speed.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
