Thanks Greg. Good to know that.
regards.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 9:08 AM Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 08:38:22AM +0800, winnie hw wrote:
> > sorry this is maybe not related to debian directly.
> > but how can I compare two versions of a package by programming?
> > for instance
On 2023-02-17 at 20:48, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 07:42:24PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
>
>> Also, while Debian uses a sane, consistent version numbering system it
>> is not safe to make assumptions about what non-Debian developers do.
>
> The best thing I can say about Debian
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 07:42:24PM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Also, while Debian uses a sane, consistent version numbering system it
> is not safe to make assumptions about what non-Debian developers do.
The best thing I can say about Debian's version strings is that they
are documented.
unicorn
Also, while Debian uses a sane, consistent version numbering system it
is not safe to make assumptions about what non-Debian developers do.
There have been some very original systems used, and developers have
been known to change systems in midstream.
--
John Hasler
j...@sugarbit.com
Elmwood, WI
On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 08:38:22AM +0800, winnie hw wrote:
> sorry this is maybe not related to debian directly.
> but how can I compare two versions of a package by programming?
> for instance, v1.24.0.1 should be later than v1.23.99.999.
Debian's dpkg(1) command has a --compare-versions option.
On 7/13/2010 8:50 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> Debian releases all architectures at once, which means a given
> release/Debian version will be (mostly) the same in 32 bit or 64 bit.
Handle with care. The 'hppa' architecture, for example, will have far
fewer packages than 'x86' and 'amd64'. Keep in
On Ma, 13 iul 10, 10:16:25, John Culleton wrote:
> I see references to various versions of Debian, including Lenny
> etc. For a 32 bit system, what is the latest stable and the
> latest unstable version?
Debian releases all architectures at once, which means a given
release/Debian version wil
John Culleton wrote:
> I see references to various versions of Debian, including Lenny
> etc. For a 32 bit system, what is the latest stable and the
> latest unstable version?
According to the Releases [1] page on the web site... Lenny is stable,
Squeeze is testing and Sid is always un
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/13/2010 10:16 AM, John Culleton wrote:
> I see references to various versions of Debian, including Lenny
> etc. For a 32 bit system, what is the latest stable and the
> latest unstable version?
Lenny 5.0.5 is the latest stable release [1]
On 4/23/07, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
P Kapat wrote:
>> > apt-get install devscripts
>> > rmadison $PKG
[snip]
> dpkg: error processing
> /var/cache/apt/archives/devscripts_2.10.3_i386.deb (--unpack):
> trying to overwrite `/usr/bin/licensecheck', which is also in packa
Re: P Kapat 2007-04-23 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Moreover, some information on what are the possible arguments for the
> various parameters of "rmadison" (like, what are COMPONENT?) might be
> useful..
Some clue about the Debian archive might be useful...
Christoph
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://
P Kapat wrote:
>> > apt-get install devscripts
>> > rmadison $PKG
>>
>> Exactly what I need. Thanks.
>
> Well, same here... Was looking for this for a long time... But I am on
> Sid, and there is a clash with the licensecheck script. It is based on
> a script provided by kdesdk-scripts... So, is
> apt-get install devscripts
> rmadison $PKG
Exactly what I need. Thanks.
Well, same here... Was looking for this for a long time... But I am on
Sid, and there is a clash with the licensecheck script. It is based on
a script provided by kdesdk-scripts... So, is it safe to use "--force"
while in
Kevin Mark wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 12:42:45AM -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
>> Say I am running Etch and my /etc/apt/sources.list contains only entries
>> related to Stable. Using command line interface, What is the efficient
>> w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 12:42:45AM -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
> Say I am running Etch and my /etc/apt/sources.list contains only entries
> related to Stable. Using command line interface, What is the efficient way
> to obtain information about
On Sun, Apr 22, 2007 at 00:42:45 -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
>Say I am running Etch and my /etc/apt/sources.list contains only
>entries related to Stable. Using command line interface, What is the
>efficient way to obtain information about versions of a package
>currently available in testi
Monique Y. Herman bounceswoosh.org> writes:
> Why not just call it "bleeding-edge"?
That would be pulling stuff from Experimental :)
I still think Unstable is quite stable, with only a small amount of diligence.
--M. Kirchhoff
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subje
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 01:36:38PM -0600, Kent West wrote:
> M.Kirchhoff wrote:
> >If you want the newest software available, Sid/Unstable is where you
> >want to be. `Unstable` is a misleading term; really, it's more
> >`volatile` than unstable, that is, packages move into Sid/Unstable
> >constant
On 2004-01-22, Paul Morgan penned:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:36:38 -0600, Kent West wrote:
>
>> M.Kirchhoff wrote:
>>
>>>If you want the newest software available, Sid/Unstable is where you
>>>want to be. `Unstable` is a misleading term; really, it's more
>>>`volatile` than unstable, that is, pack
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:36:38 -0600, Kent West wrote:
> M.Kirchhoff wrote:
>
>>If you want the newest software available, Sid/Unstable is where you want to be.
>>`Unstable` is a misleading term; really, it's more `volatile` than unstable,
>>that is, packages move into Sid/Unstable constantly, so t
M.Kirchhoff wrote:
If you want the newest software available, Sid/Unstable is where you want to be.
`Unstable` is a misleading term; really, it's more `volatile` than unstable,
that is, packages move into Sid/Unstable constantly, so the environment is in a
constant state of flux,
That's an exce
Pedro Hernandez yahoo.es> writes:
> Hello all!
>
> I am new to Debian and feel somewhat confused over the versions of some
> packages. For example the package for courier-imap state version
> 1.4.3-2.3 while the lates stable version of the software appeare to be
> 2.2.1 which seems to be quite a
Pedro Hernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Rus Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > On Thu, 22 Jan 2004,
> Pedro >
>> Debian stable aims for well, stability so the old packages are
>> known to be secure and work. If you want newer versions have a look
>> at things
> Ok. I can buy that.
On (22/01/04 15:26), Pedro Hernandez wrote:
> --- Rus Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > On Thu, 22 Jan 2004,
> Pedro >
> > Debian stable aims for well, stability so the old packages are known
> > to be
> > secure and work. If you want newer versions have a look at things
> Ok. I can buy that
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 03:26:32PM +0100, Pedro Hernandez wrote:
> Ok. I can buy that. How does things work with versions that are known
> to have security issues? Postfix 1.11 as well as 1.12 are known to have
> security "flaws", are the debian version patched for those but still
> keep version 1.
--- Rus Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > On Thu, 22 Jan 2004,
Pedro >
> Debian stable aims for well, stability so the old packages are known
> to be
> secure and work. If you want newer versions have a look at things
Ok. I can buy that. How does things work with versions that are known
to h
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Pedro Hernandez wrote:
> Hello all!
>
> I am new to Debian and feel somewhat confused over the versions of some
> packages. For example the package for courier-imap state version
> 1.4.3-2.3 while the lates stable version of the software appeare to be
> 2.2.1 which seems to be
On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 07:45:42PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 12:03:28AM -0500, Paul M Foster wrote:
> > Now the question is: If I could do this, then why haven't we backported
> > X (version 4.3) to stable?
>
> If you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 12:03:28AM -0500, Paul M Foster wrote:
> Now the question is: If I could do this, then why haven't we backported
> X (version 4.3) to stable?
If you had googled, you would have found apt-get.org, which has
sources for backporte
On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 12:03:28AM -0500, Paul M Foster wrote:
> I had a problem with X that I posted earlier this week to this list. I
> didn't receive any replies, and I had a feeling that the only answer was
> going to be upgrading xserver-xfree86 from the version I was running
> under stable. I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 19 May 2002, Jisv wrote:
> This seems like a stupid question, but if I download the current stable
> version - potato?, does that use the 2.4.18 kernel and xf86 4.xx?
No. Woody I *think* does, and it'll be the stable tree RSN. sid I know
do
On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 09:52:31PM -0500, Glen Lee Edwards wrote:
> What kind of trouble would it cause me if I installed the unstable base and
> Woody packages?
Woody is just-about-releasable right now, so it shouldn't give you
any trouble (knock on wood(y)). It sounds like the only thing
curren
>The upcoming stable distribution - Woody - features fairly recent
>software. It still uses 2.2 by default though installing 2.4 can be done
>also (there's an explanation for this in the Debian docs).
>
>For the most recent software, there's also the unstable distribution
>(codenamed Sid) - unstabl
Thus spake Jisv last Sun, May 19, 2002 at 01:05:58AM +0100:
>
> This seems like a stupid question, but if I download the current stable
> version - potato?, does that use the 2.4.18 kernel and xf86 4.xx?
> I have done a bit of reading and I seem to think it uses older software?
> Perhaps I'm wrong
Jisv wrote:
>
> This seems like a stupid question, but if I download the current stable
> version - potato?, does that use the 2.4.18 kernel and xf86 4.xx?
> I have done a bit of reading and I seem to think it uses older software?
> Perhaps I'm wrong though. I currently use Mandrake 8.2 and think
"Frans Schreuder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Reading the fantastic manual; version 2.2.19-2 is a package that has been
>packaged for Debian twice (-2). That would also mean that 2.2.19pre17 has
>not been packaged yet... or at least is newer.
>Not sure though!
Nope, in the kernel versi
Hai,
Reading the fantastic manual; version 2.2.19-2 is a package that has been
packaged for Debian twice (-2). That would also mean that 2.2.19pre17 has
not been packaged yet... or at least is newer.
Not sure though!
Regards
Frans
- Original Message -
From: "Marijn" <[EMAIL P
37 matches
Mail list logo
