On 2017-10-31 12:15, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Am 31.10.2017 um 12:21 schrieb Corinna Vinschen:
>> Not sure what distros you're referring to. Of the 58467 packages
>> in Fedora 26, 7822 are using epochs.
>
> I'm expecting as much since it was rpm that introduced the epoch IIRC (I think
> an earlier
Am 31.10.2017 um 12:21 schrieb Corinna Vinschen:
Not sure what distros you're referring to. Of the 58467 packages
in Fedora 26, 7822 are using epochs.
I'm expecting as much since it was rpm that introduced the epoch IIRC (I
think an earlier approach was using a "serial number"). Debian is
On 2017-10-31 05:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Oct 31 11:06, Achim Gratz wrote:
>> Am 30.10.2017 um 16:58 schrieb Jon Turney:
>>> "everyone" != "everyone, ignoring people who disagree with me"
>>
>> I think this is an unfair summary of my position.
>>
>>> If you think epochs are a bad idea, you
On Oct 31 11:06, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Am 30.10.2017 um 16:58 schrieb Jon Turney:
> > "everyone" != "everyone, ignoring people who disagree with me"
>
> I think this is an unfair summary of my position.
>
> > If you think epochs are a bad idea, you need to give reasons, not just
> > pretend there
Am 30.10.2017 um 16:58 schrieb Jon Turney:
"everyone" != "everyone, ignoring people who disagree with me"
I think this is an unfair summary of my position.
If you think epochs are a bad idea, you need to give reasons, not just
pretend there is no debate.
I was strictly talking about those
On 27/10/2017 20:26, Achim Gratz wrote:
Ken Brown writes:
A future version of setup might allow version numbers of the form
e:v-r, where is an epoch. Currently setup doesn't parse these
correctly when reading installed.db. In case ScanFindVisitor is used,
there is an additional problem in
On 27/10/2017 19:47, Ken Brown wrote:
A future version of setup might allow version numbers of the form
e:v-r, where is an epoch. Currently setup doesn't parse these
correctly when reading installed.db. In case ScanFindVisitor is used,
there is an additional problem in reading filenames
On 2017-10-27 14:26, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Ken Brown writes:
>> A future version of setup might allow version numbers of the form
>> e:v-r, where is an epoch. Currently setup doesn't parse these
>> correctly when reading installed.db. In case ScanFindVisitor is used,
>> there is an additional
On 2017-10-27 13:26, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Ken Brown writes:
>> A future version of setup might allow version numbers of the form
>> e:v-r, where is an epoch. Currently setup doesn't parse these
>> correctly when reading installed.db. In case ScanFindVisitor is used,
>> there is an additional
On 10/27/2017 3:26 PM, Achim Gratz wrote:
Ken Brown writes:
A future version of setup might allow version numbers of the form
e:v-r, where is an epoch. Currently setup doesn't parse these
correctly when reading installed.db. In case ScanFindVisitor is used,
there is an additional problem in
Ken Brown writes:
> A future version of setup might allow version numbers of the form
> e:v-r, where is an epoch. Currently setup doesn't parse these
> correctly when reading installed.db. In case ScanFindVisitor is used,
> there is an additional problem in reading filenames containing colons.
>
A future version of setup might allow version numbers of the form
e:v-r, where is an epoch. Currently setup doesn't parse these
correctly when reading installed.db. In case ScanFindVisitor is used,
there is an additional problem in reading filenames containing colons.
The reading is done by
12 matches
Mail list logo
