On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:56:02 -0500, Rick Thomas wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Sthu Deus wrote:
>
>> it seems to me to be weird having those "epoches"
>
> If all software developers were "well behaved" and they all co- operated
> in their versioning, it would be weird to have "epochs". Al
On Nov 8, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Sthu Deus wrote:
it seems to me to be weird having those "epoches"
If all software developers were "well behaved" and they all co-
operated in their versioning, it would be weird to have "epochs". All
versions, from all sources, would be monotonically increasin
Thank You for Your time and answer, Dan:
>First, don't think of second or fifth (per
>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/epoch) senses of "epoch"--
>the _beginning_ of some period (the meaning used re Unix time).
>Think of the first or fourth senses--a _period_ of time.
>
>Then, think of a pac
Sthu Deus wrote:
Thank You for Your time and answer, Camaleón:
It is provided to allow mistakes in the version numbers of older
versions of a package, and also a package's previous version numbering
schemes, to be left behind.
What does this mean? From other posts in the thread it is still no
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 15:37:58 +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
> Thank You for Your time and answer, Camaleón:
>
>>It is provided to allow mistakes in the version numbers of older
>>versions of a package, and also a package's previous version numbering
>>schemes, to be left behind.
>
> What does this mean
Thank You for Your time and answer, Camaleón:
>It is provided to allow mistakes in the version numbers of older
>versions of a package, and also a package's previous version numbering
>schemes, to be left behind.
What does this mean? From other posts in the thread it is still not
clear to me. If
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:
[...]
>> What does that non-sensical sounding explanation mean? Its not as if
>> it is explained at the URL cited.
>
> It is a version override. For an epoch of "n", *any* version without an epoch
> or with an epoch that is lower than "n" will be considered
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
>> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html
>
> > epoch
>
>> This is a single (generally small) unsigned integer. It may be omitted,
>> in which case zero is assumed. If it is omitted then the upstream_v
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html
>
> > epoch
>
> > This is a single (generally small) unsigned integer. It may be omitted,
> > in which case zero is assumed. If it is omitted then the upstream_version
Camaleón writes:
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html
> epoch
> This is a single (generally small) unsigned integer. It may be omitted,
> in which case zero is assumed. If it is omitted then the upstream_version
> may not contain any colons.
>
> It is provided to al
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 00:38:32 +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
> When I see this aptitude note:
>
> [UPGRADE] libavcodec52 5:0.6.1+svn20101128-0.2squeeze2 -> 5:0.7.7-0.0
>
> how do I interpret number "5:" in "5:0.6.1"?
***
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html
5.6.12 Version
The
11 matches
Mail list logo
