On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 08:41:11PM -0800, William Scott wrote:
>
> > While this works, it does "contaminate" the version number. Another
> > approach is to encode the "pre" in the revision: 0.1.0-0.pre1.1 or
> > some such. Increment the last ".1" for a new revision. This way you
> > can keep the v
> While this works, it does "contaminate" the version number. Another
> approach is to encode the "pre" in the revision: 0.1.0-0.pre1.1 or
> some such. Increment the last ".1" for a new revision. This way you
> can keep the version "pure" while still showing the "pre" status and
> being able to up
On Feb 12, 2006, at 7:01 PM, William Scott wrote:
That's great. It works, and is so simple it hurts. Thanks!
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Charles Lepple wrote:
On 2/12/06, William Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
dpkg --compare-versions 0.1.0-pre-1 gt 0.1.0 && echo "true"
true
How about 0.1.0
That's great. It works, and is so simple it hurts. Thanks!
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Charles Lepple wrote:
> On 2/12/06, William Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > dpkg --compare-versions 0.1.0-pre-1 gt 0.1.0 && echo "true"
> >
> > true
>
> How about 0.1.0.0-1 ?
--
On 2/12/06, William Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> dpkg --compare-versions 0.1.0-pre-1 gt 0.1.0 && echo "true"
>
> true
How about 0.1.0.0-1 ? (The other common alternative is to use an
epoch, but that's pretty ugly, and you can't ever stop using them once
you start. At least this way you can r
Dear Colleagues:
I now realize I should have figured out the answer to this question
earlier, but I did not.
I have a package (coot) whose most recent version is a pre-release.
As it fixes a lot of bugs, and I am in almost daily contact with the
author, we decided it was in good shape fo
