On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 14:04 +0200, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
> Why would you want to upload a package with the same version number?
> Incrementing the version number is the purpose of the version number,
> so of course you would want to change the version number every time
> there is a new pack
> Jeremiah Foster wrote:
>
>> On May 26, 2009, at 14:27, Tim Teulings wrote:
>>
>>
>> If you upload a version that already exists, the autobuilder will
>> reject it. This makes sense.
>
> Sadly this statement is ambiguous.
>
>
> "that already exists"
> exists on what? in what state?
Is avail
On May 27, 2009, at 9:51, Eero Tamminen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ext Jeremiah Foster wrote:
>> If they are "illegal" this needs to be clearly communicated in the
>> Packaging Policy document so that packagers know what to name
>> their packages. Currently the version naming is rather unclear and
Hi,
ext Jeremiah Foster wrote:
> If they are "illegal" this needs to be clearly communicated in the
> Packaging Policy document so that packagers know what to name their
> packages. Currently the version naming is rather unclear and version
> strings like the one mentioned above is confusing
On May 26, 2009, at 23:12, Tim Teulings wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> unfair to users if the version is not changed. So if I understand you
>> correctly, you are saying a failure to build is not reason enough to
>> change the version number, with which I agree. But if you change the
>
> Right. Fine :-)
>
Hello!
> unfair to users if the version is not changed. So if I understand you
> correctly, you are saying a failure to build is not reason enough to
> change the version number, with which I agree. But if you change the
Right. Fine :-)
> code somehow, or change the packaging, so that it c
On May 26, 2009, at 17:32, David Greaves wrote:
> Jeremiah Foster wrote:
>> On May 26, 2009, at 14:27, Tim Teulings wrote:
>>
>> If you upload a version that already exists, the autobuilder will
>> reject it. This makes sense.
>
> Sadly this statement is ambiguous.
Let there be no ambiguity; if
Jeremiah Foster wrote:
> On May 26, 2009, at 14:27, Tim Teulings wrote:
>
> If you upload a version that already exists, the autobuilder will
> reject it. This makes sense.
Sadly this statement is ambiguous.
"that already exists"
exists on what? in what state?
I and others think that if
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Jeremiah Foster <
jerem...@jeremiahfoster.com> wrote:
>
> On May 26, 2009, at 14:27, Tim Teulings wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> >>> I suppose that if a package is rejected, we can upload it with the
> >>> same version number ? Requiring to increment the version on each
On May 26, 2009, at 14:27, Tim Teulings wrote:
> Hello!
>
>>> I suppose that if a package is rejected, we can upload it with the
>>> same version number ? Requiring to increment the version on each
>>> failed/rejected upload would seem strange IMHO :)
>>
>> Why would you want to upload a package
Hello!
>> I suppose that if a package is rejected, we can upload it with the
>> same version number ? Requiring to increment the version on each
>> failed/rejected upload would seem strange IMHO :)
>
> Why would you want to upload a package with the same version number?
> Incrementing the version
Jeremiah Foster wrote:
> On May 26, 2009, at 13:53, Anderson Lizardo wrote:
>
>> I suppose that if a package is rejected, we can upload it with the
>> same version number ? Requiring to increment the version on each
>> failed/rejected upload would seem strange IMHO :)
>
> Why would you want to up
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Jeremiah Foster
wrote:
>
> On May 26, 2009, at 13:53, Anderson Lizardo wrote:
>
>>
>> I suppose that if a package is rejected, we can upload it with the
>> same version number ? Requiring to increment the version on each
>> failed/rejected upload would seem strange
On May 26, 2009, at 13:53, Anderson Lizardo wrote:
>
> I suppose that if a package is rejected, we can upload it with the
> same version number ? Requiring to increment the version on each
> failed/rejected upload would seem strange IMHO :)
Why would you want to upload a package with the same ve
On May 26, 2009, at 13:29, Niels Breet wrote:
>> This morning I got an email, it says
>> that the packages have been rejected and they won't be moved in the
>> repository because the version (5.0_5.0.32-7etch6maemo3) is minor
>> of the
>> current [3] version available in the repository
>> ( 5
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Niels Breet wrote:
>> This morning I got an email, it says
>> that the packages have been rejected and they won't be moved in the
>> repository because the version (5.0_5.0.32-7etch6maemo3) is minor of the
>> current [3] version available in the repository ( 5.0.32
Hi Niels,
This is opensshd ratelimit for new connections. It seems that even the
> current high limits are not high enough.
>
Okay
It seems that the version comparison used by BuildMe doesn't understand
> the long version number. (7etch6maemo3) I'd need to find out if such
> numbers are intended
On Tue, May 26, 2009 08:26, Antonio Aloisio wrote:
> Hi there,
> Yesterday I uploaded with scp a new pacakge in the fremantle builder
> queue. After several having this error [1] for about 20 times, I uploaded
> the source successfully.
This is opensshd ratelimit for new connections. It seems that
Hi there,
Yesterday I uploaded with scp a new pacakge in the fremantle builder queue.
After several having this error [1] for about 20 times, I uploaded the
source successfully. I waited for some minutes (> 15) to be able to see the
sources in the queque [2].
This morning I got an email, it says th
19 matches
Mail list logo
