On Jan 23, 2005, at 2:11 PM, Koen van der Drift wrote:
On Jan 23, 2005, at 4:46 PM, Trevor Harmon wrote:
I suppose this is not a Fink bug but rather a clash in version
conventions. Perhaps the graph-pm package should have been versioned
as 0.2.1.5 and 0.5.5?
I am using the version numbers as prov
On Jan 23, 2005, at 4:46 PM, Trevor Harmon wrote:
I suppose this is not a Fink bug but rather a clash in version
conventions. Perhaps the graph-pm package should have been versioned
as 0.2.1.5 and 0.5.5?
I am using the version numbers as provided by the package, which seemed
more logical to me.
On Jan 23, 2005, at 4:46 PM, TheSin wrote:
no, it is showing you that 1:0.55 is newer, fink shows the upgrade
version not the installed version.
Duh, I didn't rebuild the package after adding the Epoch field ;-)
Now in the list it looks good:
i graph-pm 1:0.55-1Graph modul
no, it is showing you that 1:0.55 is newer, fink shows the upgrade
version not the installed version.
---
TS
http://southofheaven.org
Chaos is the beginning and end, try dealing with the rest.
On 23-Jan-05, at 2:41 PM, Koen van der Drift wrote:
On Jan 23, 2005, at 4:17 PM, TheSin wrote:
read the
On Jan 23, 2005, at 12:20 PM, Charles Lepple wrote:
do you mean the bug is in the version comparison, or in showing the
info for the older version?
Version comparison.
"dpkg --compare-versions 0.20105 gt 0.55" returns true, because
version numbers are generally not compared as though they were true
On Jan 23, 2005, at 4:17 PM, TheSin wrote:
read the fink docs on use of epoch, if used right is will say
Setting up graph-pm (1:0.55-1) ...
The packaging docs do not say much about epoch (they refer to the
debian docs), so by comparing other packages, I added this line to the
info file:
Epoch: 1
read the fink docs on use of epoch, if used right is will say
Setting up graph-pm (1:0.55-1) ...
---
TS
http://southofheaven.org
Chaos is the beginning and end, try dealing with the rest.
On 23-Jan-05, at 1:16 PM, Koen van der Drift wrote:
On Jan 23, 2005, at 12:47 PM, Alexander K. Hansen wrote:
On
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:57:49 -0800, Trevor Harmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2005, at 8:17 AM, Koen van der Drift wrote:
>
> > The graph-pm package which I maintain is currently at version
> > graph-pm-0.20105. A new upstream version has been released,
> > graph-pm-0.55. If I type fin
On Jan 23, 2005, at 12:47 PM, Alexander K. Hansen wrote:
On Jan 23, 2005, at 11:17 AM, Koen van der Drift wrote:
Hi,
The graph-pm package which I maintain is currently at version
graph-pm-0.20105. A new upstream version has been released,
graph-pm-0.55. If I type fink info graph-pm, it will sti
On Jan 23, 2005, at 8:17 AM, Koen van der Drift wrote:
The graph-pm package which I maintain is currently at version
graph-pm-0.20105. A new upstream version has been released,
graph-pm-0.55. If I type fink info graph-pm, it will still show the
info for the older version (the newer version is in
Hi,
On Jan 21, 2005, at 4:01 AM, Daniel Macks wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 05:57:23AM -0500, Dave Vasilevsky wrote:
On Jan 20, 2005, at 8:02 PM, Daniel Macks wrote:
If a user is not carfull the system might end up unusable due
to e.g. a missing apt while running with UseBinaryDist.
That's not an
On Jan 23, 2005, at 11:17 AM, Koen van der Drift wrote:
Hi,
The graph-pm package which I maintain is currently at version
graph-pm-0.20105. A new upstream version has been released,
graph-pm-0.55. If I type fink info graph-pm, it will still show the
info for the older version (the newer version
Hi,
The graph-pm package which I maintain is currently at version
graph-pm-0.20105. A new upstream version has been released,
graph-pm-0.55. If I type fink info graph-pm, it will still show the
info for the older version (the newer version is in my local tree). I
suspect this is because 0.20105
13 matches
Mail list logo
