On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 09:39, Max Horn wrote:
> the 5.0-rc -> 4.999-rc sounds like shit
5.0alpha < 5.0beta < 5.0rc < 5.0rel
Someone on debian-devel came up with that once. I think I've remembered
it right.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Anfang der weitergeleiteten E-Mail:
Von: Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Datum: Do, 6. Mär 2003 13:14:15 Europe/Berlin
An: Ben Hines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Betreff: Re: [Fink-devel] Epoch
Am Donnerstag, 06.03.03 um 04:12 Uhr schrieb Ben Hines:
On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 10:14
On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 10:14 AM, Max Horn wrote:
At 12:29 Uhr -0500 05.03.2003, Benjamin Reed wrote:
Max Horn wrote:
But my motivation to agree to this is most definitely not due to
what the debian policy says. We are not debian! Sure we can look at
how they do things, and if we like i
At 12:29 Uhr -0500 05.03.2003, Benjamin Reed wrote:
Max Horn wrote:
But my motivation to agree to this is most definitely not due to
what the debian policy says. We are not debian! Sure we can look at
how they do things, and if we like it, do it the same way, but I
feel in no way bound to this.
Max Horn wrote:
But my motivation to agree to this is most definitely not due to what
the debian policy says. We are not debian! Sure we can look at how they
do things, and if we like it, do it the same way, but I feel in no way
bound to this. In particular, they ask to avoid epochs as much as
At 17:10 Uhr -0800 04.03.2003, Ben Hines wrote:
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 05:21 AM, Max Horn wrote:
At 22:39 Uhr -0800 03.03.2003, Ben Hines wrote:
On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 11:38 AM, Justin Hallett wrote:
okay %e is great thanks...and I agree, but I think it will be used, I have
a numbe
At 21:56 Uhr -0500 04.03.2003, Kyle Moffett wrote:
[...]
Exactly, I think that the 'epoch' system is very problematic. Once
a package begins using an epoch, it must continue to use the epoch
for the remainder of its life, which could be very long, even after
many version changes.
I doN't see
On Tuesday, Mar 4, 2003, at 19:37 US/Eastern, Max Horn wrote:
At 17:58 Uhr -0500 04.03.2003, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Tuesday, Mar 4, 2003, at 17:35 US/Eastern, Justin Hallett wrote:
I'm about to release proftpd 1.2.8 final and RC2 is in unstable ATM
and
this is what I'm gonna do, unless someone obj
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 05:21 AM, Max Horn wrote:
Quite apparently we have different stances on this. So, please explain, how exactly do you think this version fudging should work, w/o confusing users by using completly different versions than the rest of the world for a given package?
I
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 05:21 AM, Max Horn wrote:
At 22:39 Uhr -0800 03.03.2003, Ben Hines wrote:
On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 11:38 AM, Justin Hallett wrote:
okay %e is great thanks...and I agree, but I think it will be used,
I have
a number of rc pkgs.
It is almost good that it is not
At 17:58 Uhr -0500 04.03.2003, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Tuesday, Mar 4, 2003, at 17:35 US/Eastern, Justin Hallett wrote:
I'm about to release proftpd 1.2.8 final and RC2 is in unstable ATM and
this is what I'm gonna do, unless someone objects in the next hmm 30
minutes :)
Current: 1.2.8RC2-1
New: 1.2
On Tuesday, Mar 4, 2003, at 17:56 US/Eastern, Max Horn wrote:
Uh this is exactly the abusive notation I mentioned above. It would
mean using a completly different version than upstream. With Ben's
suggestion at least it looks identical if you don't look to closely...
So users will know what it i
nope, it does work causes - is higher then R
Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I don't think that will work, as 8RC2 > 8 from dpkg's point of view.
>This should
>have originally been done as
> %v=1.2.7. %r=1.2.8rc2-1
> or
> %v=1.2.8 %r=0-1.2.8rc2-1
-=[JFH] Justin
On Tuesday, Mar 4, 2003, at 17:35 US/Eastern, Justin Hallett wrote:
I'm about to release proftpd 1.2.8 final and RC2 is in unstable ATM and
this is what I'm gonna do, unless someone objects in the next hmm 30
minutes :)
Current: 1.2.8RC2-1
New: 1.2.8-Final-1
I don't think that will work, as 8RC2 >
At 17:38 Uhr -0500 04.03.2003, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Tuesday, Mar 4, 2003, at 09:01 US/Eastern, Benjamin Reed wrote:
Max Horn wrote:
E.g. take the example of 5.0-RC1 followed by 5.0. What do you
propse should be done here to make it debian version compliant?
4.9 and 5.0 ? or 5.0 and 5.0a ? O
I'm about to release proftpd 1.2.8 final and RC2 is in unstable ATM and
this is what I'm gonna do, unless someone objects in the next hmm 30
minutes :)
Current: 1.2.8RC2-1
New: 1.2.8-Final-1
Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Here is something I have seen done with Debian. It makes
>less
On Tuesday, Mar 4, 2003, at 09:01 US/Eastern, Benjamin Reed wrote:
Max Horn wrote:
E.g. take the example of 5.0-RC1 followed by 5.0. What do you propse
should be done here to make it debian version compliant? 4.9 and
5.0 ? or 5.0 and 5.0a ? Or what? None of them seems appealing to me.
Both c
Le mardi, 4 mars 2003, à 15:34 Europe/Paris, Max Horn a écrit :
At 9:01 Uhr -0500 04.03.2003, Benjamin Reed wrote:
Max Horn wrote:
E.g. take the example of 5.0-RC1 followed by 5.0. What do you propse
should be done here to make it debian version compliant? 4.9 and
5.0 ? or 5.0 and 5.0a ? Or
At 9:01 Uhr -0500 04.03.2003, Benjamin Reed wrote:
Max Horn wrote:
E.g. take the example of 5.0-RC1 followed by 5.0. What do you
propse should be done here to make it debian version compliant?
4.9 and 5.0 ? or 5.0 and 5.0a ? Or what? None of them seems
appealing to me. Both can potentially c
Max Horn wrote:
E.g. take the example of 5.0-RC1 followed by 5.0. What do you propse
should be done here to make it debian version compliant? 4.9 and 5.0
? or 5.0 and 5.0a ? Or what? None of them seems appealing to me. Both
can potentially conflict with actual version of the package (e.g. th
At 22:39 Uhr -0800 03.03.2003, Ben Hines wrote:
On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 11:38 AM, Justin Hallett wrote:
okay %e is great thanks...and I agree, but I think it will be used, I have
a number of rc pkgs.
It is almost good that it is not documented. It really should not be
used except in grave c
On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 05:39 PM, Ben Hines wrote:
Particularly never add a "-RC1" or something similar just "because you
can use epoch to correct it later". It is better to not package that
version, or if you must, fudge the version so it works with dpkg's
system. If you see a strange v
On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 11:38 AM, Justin Hallett wrote:
okay %e is great thanks...and I agree, but I think it will be used, I
have
a number of rc pkgs.
It is almost good that it is not documented. It really should not be
used except in grave circumstances. If you have to fudge version
nu
On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 02:38 PM, Justin Hallett wrote:
okay %e is great thanks...and I agree, but I think it will be used, I
have
a number of rc pkgs.
Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Yes there is: %e (see PkgVersion.pm, line 136).
Cause I think it'd be nice to have if we start using
okay %e is great thanks...and I agree, but I think it will be used, I have
a number of rc pkgs.
Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Yes there is: %e (see PkgVersion.pm, line 136).
>
>>Cause I think it'd be nice to have if we start using Epoch more and more.
>
>Well, epochs should only be used as
At 12:26 Uhr -0700 03.03.2003, Justin Hallett wrote:
hehe np, I was just listing them for dmalloc to document or to have record
of it for others... is there an Epoch version percent expantion var?
Yes there is: %e (see PkgVersion.pm, line 136).
Cause I think it'd be nice to have if we start using
hehe np, I was just listing them for dmalloc to document or to have record
of it for others... is there an Epoch version percent expantion var?
Cause I think it'd be nice to have if we start using Epoch more and more.
Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Yup yup, it still needs to be properly do
At 11:29 Uhr -0700 03.03.2003, Justin Hallett wrote:
since I think i was the first to try and use the new Epoch in fink 0.12, I
think the docs are very limited and completly unclear.
First there should be an example secondly ppl must know to add it to the
Splittoffs as well as the Main pkg dependin
since I think i was the first to try and use the new Epoch in fink 0.12, I
think the docs are very limited and completly unclear.
First there should be an example secondly ppl must know to add it to the
Splittoffs as well as the Main pkg depending on the shlibs should have
Depends: %N-shlibs (= :%
On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 07:09 AM, Max Horn wrote:
In case anybody is interested in working on epoch support in Fink:
Sylvain started work on this (see
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/
index.php?func=detail&aid=607742&group_id=17203&atid=317203), but
there were some issues, and
In case anybody is interested in working on epoch support in Fink:
Sylvain started work on this (see
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=607742&group_id=17203&atid=317203),
but there were some issues, and apparently he has no time currently
to work on it. So if your are in
31 matches
Mail list logo
