Josselin Mouette (2002-02-25 14:00:29 +0100) :
I have a problem with the frozen-bubble-lib package : due to a debhelper
bug, it has been built as an empty package on two arches (sparc and
powerpc), and marked as successfully built by buildd.
Is there a good way to tell buildd to rebuild
Hi,
The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
What would be the best numbering scheme for the next beta series to
avoid the use of final for the stable release ?
I think about 2.0.99beta1, 2.0.99beta2 ...
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 08:35:27AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
Hi,
The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
What would be the best numbering scheme for the next beta series to
avoid the use of
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:48:57PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 08:35:27AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
Hi,
The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
What would be the
(Try dpkg --compare-versions 2.0.99beta lt 2.0final ,
if $? is not 0 then I'm wrong)
$ dpkg --compare-versions 2.0.99beta lt 2.0final ; echo $?
1
$ dpkg --compare-versions 2.1 lt 2.0.99beta ; echo $?
1
I would advice that you do not provide beta versions
of software,
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 03:58:54PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
By the way, why gphoto2 instead of gphoto since 2.0 is out ?
gphoto2 is rewritten from scratch.
Not all gphoto drivers have been ported to gphoto2.
So it makes sense to keep the both packaged.
But even if I agree, this is the
Roland Mas wrote:
Josselin Mouette (2002-02-25 14:00:29 +0100) :
I have a problem with the frozen-bubble-lib package : due to a debhelper
bug, it has been built as an empty package on two arches (sparc and
powerpc), and marked as successfully built by buildd.
Is there a good way to tell
le lun 25-02-2002 à 14:09, Rick Younie a écrit :
Just a new version would work in this case. Only debhelper 3.4.9
was buggy and it was only in the archive for a day or two. I'm
sure all buildds have upgraded now.
Nice catch, BTW. I wonder how many maintainers noticed the problem.
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:46:19 -0500
christophe barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:48:57PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
What would be
Gustavo Noronha Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:46:19 -0500
christophe barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:48:57PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
For the final release 2.0, I
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 03:09:58PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
What would be the best numbering scheme for the next beta series to
avoid the
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 03:09:58PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as
2.0beta5.
For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
What would be the best numbering scheme for the next beta series
to
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 10:50:09AM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
But... Wouldn't it be nice to have dpkg understand alpha/beta in version
numbers?
It'll be in dpkg 1.10, although it's not clear whether it'll be valid to
use it until that makes it into a stable release.
--
Colin Watson
Hi,
I have a problem with the frozen-bubble-lib package : due to a debhelper
bug, it has been built as an empty package on two arches (sparc and
powerpc), and marked as successfully built by buildd.
Is there a good way to tell buildd to rebuild these arches with the new
debhelper ?
Thanks.
--
Josselin Mouette (2002-02-25 14:00:29 +0100) :
I have a problem with the frozen-bubble-lib package : due to a debhelper
bug, it has been built as an empty package on two arches (sparc and
powerpc), and marked as successfully built by buildd.
Is there a good way to tell buildd to rebuild these
Hi,
The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
What would be the best numbering scheme for the next beta series to
avoid the use of final for the stable release ?
I think about 2.0.99beta1, 2.0.99beta2 ... 2.1
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 08:35:27AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
Hi,
The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
What would be the best numbering scheme for the next beta series to
avoid the use of
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:48:57PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 08:35:27AM -0500, christophe barbé wrote:
Hi,
The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
What would be the
(Try dpkg --compare-versions 2.0.99beta lt 2.0final ,
if $? is not 0 then I'm wrong)
$ dpkg --compare-versions 2.0.99beta lt 2.0final ; echo $?
1
$ dpkg --compare-versions 2.1 lt 2.0.99beta ; echo $?
1
I would advice that you do not provide beta versions
of software,
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 03:58:54PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
By the way, why gphoto2 instead of gphoto since 2.0 is out ?
gphoto2 is rewritten from scratch.
Not all gphoto drivers have been ported to gphoto2.
So it makes sense to keep the both packaged.
But even if I agree, this is the
Roland Mas wrote:
Josselin Mouette (2002-02-25 14:00:29 +0100) :
I have a problem with the frozen-bubble-lib package : due to a debhelper
bug, it has been built as an empty package on two arches (sparc and
powerpc), and marked as successfully built by buildd.
Is there a good way to tell
le lun 25-02-2002 à 14:09, Rick Younie a écrit :
Just a new version would work in this case. Only debhelper 3.4.9
was buggy and it was only in the archive for a day or two. I'm
sure all buildds have upgraded now.
Nice catch, BTW. I wonder how many maintainers noticed the problem.
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:46:19 -0500
christophe barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:48:57PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
What would be
Gustavo Noronha Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 09:46:19 -0500
christophe barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:48:57PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as 2.0beta5.
For the final release 2.0, I
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 03:09:58PM -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote:
The current gphoto2 release is 2.0beta5 wich is packaged as
2.0beta5.
For the final release 2.0, I will package it as 2.0final.
What would be the best numbering scheme for the next beta series
to
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 10:50:09AM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
But... Wouldn't it be nice to have dpkg understand alpha/beta in version
numbers?
It'll be in dpkg 1.10, although it's not clear whether it'll be valid to
use it until that makes it into a stable release.
--
Colin Watson
26 matches
Mail list logo
