On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 05:43:22PM +0000, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > Landry Breuil <lan...@rhaalovely.net> wrote: > > > i think your mailer ate the diff... and while here, a fix to libmad's > > PKGNAME would be appropriate, so that it actually complies to > > packages-specs(7) (ie libmad-0.15.1betap0), which would need an EPOCH > > bump to go forward... > > What's wrong with libmad-0.15.1bp0? packages-specs says: > > | Parts can also be numbers with an optional letter appended. The > | numbers are compared numerically, and in case of equality, the letter > | makes the difference. > > -- > Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de >
Is it actually a Beta version?? I didn't check. I will take a better look. man packages-specs also says: The last part may contain an extra suffix matching rc[N], beta[N], pre[N], or pl[N], with N an optional number. These correspond to traditional notations for `release candidate', `beta version', `pre-release', `patch-level', and are ordered accordingly, e.g., beta is oldest, rc and pre are next (and non-comparable to one another), then normal version, and finally pl. Chris Bennett
