On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 23:03:05 +0200, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050823 22:58]:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is out of date since it does not explain ~ yet. Maybe, if you
have the time and since you just looked at the matter
also sprach Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.08.23.1908 +0200]:
case, I wanted to double-check and be sure that dpkg --compare-versions is
the canonical ordering for version numbers. I'm pretty sure it is, but
better safe than sorry to check.
Yes.
Is there a document anywhere outside of
dpkg --compare-versions provides exactly the ordering that I want, namely
that 1.4rc1 1.4.0 so by omitting the final patch number in the RC
revision I can use the correct upstream version without using epochs or
strange-looking version numbers. However, since this is a bit of an edge
case, I
Thanks for the confirmation!
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
also sprach Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.08.23.1908 +0200]:
Is there a document anywhere outside of the dpkg source that explains
the algorithm for how version numbers are ordered by the archive
software?
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks for the confirmation!
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
also sprach Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.08.23.1908 +0200]:
Is there a document anywhere outside of the dpkg source that explains
the algorithm for how version numbers are
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is out of date since it does not explain ~ yet. Maybe, if you have
the time and since you just looked at the matter closely anyway, you
could draw up a few lines and send a patch?
I'm certainly willing to do so, but I thought that policy
* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050823 22:58]:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is out of date since it does not explain ~ yet. Maybe, if you have
the time and since you just looked at the matter closely anyway, you
could draw up a few lines and send a patch?
I'm
also sprach Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.08.23.2257 +0200]:
I'm certainly willing to do so, but I thought that policy wasn't ready to
change yet. Wasn't it waiting on implementation of that feature in dak,
which is currently using ~ internally for something else?
Yes, APT and dpkg
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050823 22:58]:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is out of date since it does not explain ~ yet. Maybe, if you have
the time and since you just looked at the matter closely anyway, you
could draw
9 matches
Mail list logo