Oliver Elphick wrote: > Lamar Owen wrote: > >as the Debian packages have the same issue -- and I don't know if .deb > >has an analog to Serial:. > We have epochs, that is, the package version is preceded by an integer > and a colon, which overrides every other part of the version and release > number. However, if I ever use an epoch, I will be stuck with epochs for ever; > so I don't want to start. RPM also has the epoch mechanism -- and it sounds just like what you have just described. Not something I want to start using, either. It's more like a 'super-major' version number than the RPM serial mechanism, which works in a more broken fashion. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
- Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta... Oliver Elphick
- Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a ... The Hermit Hacker
- Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going fro... Oliver Elphick
- Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going... The Hermit Hacker
- Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats ... Lamar Owen
- [HACKERS] Re: RPM upgrade caveats going from a ... Alessio Bragadini
- Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta vers... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta... Lamar Owen
- Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a ... Oliver Elphick
- Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a ... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta vers... Len Morgan
- Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta... Oliver Elphick