Hi!
It will not be necessary to name it 1.0really, but as many others do:
1.0final...
What about that one?
Rolly
This is in response to the whole thread, not just this single message
This is something I suspected would happen but since I'm new to Debian I
figured you guys had it all worked out. I guess I should have said
something sooner. The solution is pretty simple, though fairly
revolutionary. Limit th
Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Herbert Xu wrote:
> > Andreas Metzlerwrote:
> >> cu and- I would not use an epoch unless I was forced to,
> >> ugly package versions go, epochs stay forever -reas
>
> > You know what, version numbers stay forever too. Well, they would
> > if it weren't for
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> cu and- I would not use an epoch unless I was forced to,
>> ugly package versions go, epochs stay forever -reas
> You know what, version numbers stay forever too. Well, they would
> if it weren't
Mark Johnson wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm updating the docbook-simple package from V1.0cr2 to V1.0. Since
> 1.0cr2 > 1.0, I'm not sure how to handle the situation.
>
> Policy & the Developers Reference imply that I upload V1.0 and file a
> bug against ftp.debian.org to have V1.0CR2 removed from the
>
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 23:24:38 -0500
Neil Roeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 7, Mark Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I'm updating the docbook-simple package from V1.0cr2 to V1.0. Since
> > 1.0cr2 > 1.0, I'm not sure how to handle the situation.
>
> 1.0.0 will do the trick, and I thi
On Nov 7, Mark Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I'm updating the docbook-simple package from V1.0cr2 to V1.0. Since
> 1.0cr2 > 1.0, I'm not sure how to handle the situation.
1.0.0 will do the trick, and I think that's cleaner than something like
1.0really.
--
Neil Roeth
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> cu and- I would not use an epoch unless I was forced to,
> ugly package versions go, epochs stay forever -reas
You know what, version numbers stay forever too. Well, they would
if it weren't for the epoch...
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 i
Mark Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm updating the docbook-simple package from V1.0cr2 to V1.0. Since
> 1.0cr2 > 1.0, I'm not sure how to handle the situation.
> Policy & the Developers Reference imply that I upload V1.0 and file a
> bug against ftp.debian.org to have V1.0CR2 removed from
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 04:57:54PM -0500, Mark Johnson wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm updating the docbook-simple package from V1.0cr2 to V1.0. Since
> 1.0cr2 > 1.0, I'm not sure how to handle the situation.
>
> Policy & the Developers Reference imply that I upload V1.0 and file a
> bug against ftp.deb
Hi All,
I'm updating the docbook-simple package from V1.0cr2 to V1.0. Since
1.0cr2 > 1.0, I'm not sure how to handle the situation.
Policy & the Developers Reference imply that I upload V1.0 and file a
bug against ftp.debian.org to have V1.0CR2 removed from the
archive. This seems like an odd way
11 matches
Mail list logo
