Hi all,
I'd like to make a request for a sponsor for my PennMUSH package. I've been
working with Joel Baker for a few months now, but he has informed me that he
won't be able to continue doing so for the time being. The package is in
pretty good shape, thanks to Joel's input.
If anyone is interes
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 12:55:33PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> The version for this release is 0.70-rc, and upstream says the next
> release will be 0.70. The obvious problem is:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg --compare-versions 0.70-rc-1 lt 0.70-1 && echo yes
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
>
> That won't
This one time, at band camp, Andreas Metzler said:
> I think you are misparsing Colin. The pool managing scripts will
> definitely complain if you upload a new foish-bar_0.70.orig.tar.gz.
> You /cannot/ replace a foish-bar_0.70.orig.tar.gz in the archive
> without changing the name.
That was my fe
This one time, at band camp, Humberto Massa said:
> I think he meant
>
> 0.70-rc1 when RC, then 0.70-rel1 when RELEASE
>
> $ dpkg --compare-versions 0.70-rc1 lt 0.70-rel1 && echo yes
> yes
Ah, sorry about that. Parse error. That would work, and has the
advantage that it's less ugly than the oth
Hi all,
I'd like to make a request for a sponsor for my PennMUSH package. I've been
working with Joel Baker for a few months now, but he has informed me that he
won't be able to continue doing so for the time being. The package is in
pretty good shape, thanks to Joel's input.
If anyone is interes
This one time, at band camp, Andreas Metzler said:
> I think you are misparsing Colin. The pool managing scripts will
> definitely complain if you upload a new foish-bar_0.70.orig.tar.gz.
> You /cannot/ replace a foish-bar_0.70.orig.tar.gz in the archive
> without changing the name.
That was my fe
This one time, at band camp, Humberto Massa said:
> I think he meant
>
> 0.70-rc1 when RC, then 0.70-rel1 when RELEASE
>
> $ dpkg --compare-versions 0.70-rc1 lt 0.70-rel1 && echo yes
> yes
Ah, sorry about that. Parse error. That would work, and has the
advantage that it's less ugly than the oth
On 2004-03-18 Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Colin Watson said:
> > There's ~, but you can't use that until sarge has been released.
> >
> > In the absence of that, something like 0.69-really-0.70-rc-1 (or what
> > you suggest) is a common workaround. It's n
On 2004-03-18 Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Colin Watson said:
> > There's ~, but you can't use that until sarge has been released.
> >
> > In the absence of that, something like 0.69-really-0.70-rc-1 (or what
> > you suggest) is a common workaround. It's n
Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Michael Koch said:
You could use 0.70-release-1 (or 0.70-rel1).
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg --compare-versions 0.70-release-1 lt 0.70-1 &&
echo yes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg --compare-versions 0.70-rel1 lt 0.70-1 && echo
yes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 01:17:52PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Michael Koch said:
> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 12:55:33PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > This may be a simple thing that has been solved many times before, but I
> > > am apparentl
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 01:17:52PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 12:55:33PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > You could use 0.70-release-1 (or 0.70-rel1).
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg --compare-versions 0.70-release-1 lt 0.70-1 && echo
> yes
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg --compa
This one time, at band camp, Colin Watson said:
> There's ~, but you can't use that until sarge has been released.
>
> In the absence of that, something like 0.69-really-0.70-rc-1 (or what
> you suggest) is a common workaround. It's not too bad to change the
> tarball name.
OK, if it's not a big
This one time, at band camp, Michael Koch said:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 12:55:33PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > This may be a simple thing that has been solved many times before, but I
> > am apparently being stupid about it. I am packaging the newest release
> > of one of
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 12:55:33PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This may be a simple thing that has been solved many times before, but I
> am apparently being stupid about it. I am packaging the newest release
> of one of my packages, and I am having some trouble ensuring
> upgradeability.
>
> Th
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 12:55:33PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> This may be a simple thing that has been solved many times before, but I
> am apparently being stupid about it. I am packaging the newest release
> of one of my packages, and I am having some trouble ensuring
> upgrade
Hello all,
This may be a simple thing that has been solved many times before, but I
am apparently being stupid about it. I am packaging the newest release
of one of my packages, and I am having some trouble ensuring
upgradeability.
The version for this release is 0.70-rc, and upstream says the n
Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Michael Koch said:
You could use 0.70-release-1 (or 0.70-rel1).
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg --compare-versions 0.70-release-1 lt 0.70-1 &&
echo yes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg --compare-versions 0.70-rel1 lt 0.70-1 && echo
yes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$
Sam
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 01:17:52PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Michael Koch said:
> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 12:55:33PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > This may be a simple thing that has been solved many times before, but I
> > > am apparentl
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 01:17:52PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 12:55:33PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > You could use 0.70-release-1 (or 0.70-rel1).
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg --compare-versions 0.70-release-1 lt 0.70-1 && echo yes
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dpkg --compare-
This one time, at band camp, Colin Watson said:
> There's ~, but you can't use that until sarge has been released.
>
> In the absence of that, something like 0.69-really-0.70-rc-1 (or what
> you suggest) is a common workaround. It's not too bad to change the
> tarball name.
OK, if it's not a big
This one time, at band camp, Michael Koch said:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 12:55:33PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > This may be a simple thing that has been solved many times before, but I
> > am apparently being stupid about it. I am packaging the newest release
> > of one of
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 12:55:33PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This may be a simple thing that has been solved many times before, but I
> am apparently being stupid about it. I am packaging the newest release
> of one of my packages, and I am having some trouble ensuring
> upgradeability.
>
> Th
--- Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Text such as the following would be useful in your
> licencing statements:
>
> "Additional to those permissions granted by the GNU
> Public License,
> permission is given to distribute copies of this
> work linked to software
> licenced under the ter
On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 12:55:33PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> This may be a simple thing that has been solved many times before, but I
> am apparently being stupid about it. I am packaging the newest release
> of one of my packages, and I am having some trouble ensuring
> upgrade
Hello all,
This may be a simple thing that has been solved many times before, but I
am apparently being stupid about it. I am packaging the newest release
of one of my packages, and I am having some trouble ensuring
upgradeability.
The version for this release is 0.70-rc, and upstream says the n
--- Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Text such as the following would be useful in your
> licencing statements:
>
> "Additional to those permissions granted by the GNU
> Public License,
> permission is given to distribute copies of this
> work linked to software
> licenced under the ter
On 2004-03-18 Everton da Silva Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'd start hitting up the maintainers (and upstreams) of packages
>> which *could* use SRV records, regardless of whether they
>> currently do or not, and suggest it to them.
> I pla
On 2004-03-18 Everton da Silva Marques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'd start hitting up the maintainers (and upstreams) of packages
>> which *could* use SRV records, regardless of whether they
>> currently do or not, and suggest it to them.
> I pla
29 matches
Mail list logo
