Anthony Towns writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Anthony Towns writes:
>>>That'd mean REJECTing uploads whose versions match
>>>"[^0-9]+[a-z][0-9]+$" presumably.
> ^ ^
> First + is literal, second + is "one or more". One should be
> escaped. Which one? Depends whether it
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:>>
1.rc << 1.rc2 << 1.rc+b1
1.2-1~beta << 1.2-1~beta2 << 1.2-1~beta+b1
1.2~beta-1 << 1.2~beta-1+b1 << 1.2~beta2-1
Adding the implicit '0' that dpkg assumes on versions ending in alpha
chars would solve both cases:
That is
Anthony Towns writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> 1.rc << 1.rc2 << 1.rc+b1
>> 1.2-1~beta << 1.2-1~beta2 << 1.2-1~beta+b1
>
> 1.2~beta-1 << 1.2~beta-1+b1 << 1.2~beta2-1
>
> Keeping the Debian revision simple is a Good Thing.
>
>> Adding the implicit '0' that dpkg assumes on versions ending in
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 02:24:33PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 01:13:09PM +, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > It is a payoff, larger diff for less frequent orig.tar.gz uploads. Instead
> > of uploading a 3MB mutt_1.5.6-20040915.orig.tar.gz the mutt maintainers can
>
Andreas Metzler wrote:
Anthony Towns azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
Hrm, why isn't this 1.2+20041208-1 ? Isn't the date describing the
upstream version? Or "1.2-20041208-1", or "1.2+cvs20041208-1" or whatever.
-rw-rw-r-- 16 katiedebadmin 2908273 May 2 2004
pool/main/m/mutt/mutt_1.5.6.ori
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 01:13:09PM +, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Anthony Towns azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > Hrm, why isn't this 1.2+20041208-1 ? Isn't the date describing the
> > upstream version? Or "1.2-20041208-1", or "1.2+cvs20041208-1" or whatever.
> >
> > It seems to result in rather
Anthony Towns azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[...]
> > Another case that should be considered is the existing use of + for
> > revisions of a cvs snapshot (e.g. mutt uses a + but always does so):
> > 1.2-20041208 "<<" 1.2-20041208+2 "<<" 1.2-20041208+b1
>
> Hrm, why i
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
1.rc << 1.rc2 << 1.rc+b1
1.2-1~beta << 1.2-1~beta2 << 1.2-1~beta+b1
1.2~beta-1 << 1.2~beta-1+b1 << 1.2~beta2-1
Keeping the Debian revision simple is a Good Thing.
Adding the implicit '0' that dpkg assumes on versions ending in alpha
chars would solve both cases:
That'd m
Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 13:53 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
>> there has been some casual discussion on IRC about version numbers for
>> binary-only NMUs, and different ideas have been exchanged. I try to
>> summarize the status, so that we can get t
9 matches
Mail list logo
