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 at
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
version
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 available in
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
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
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 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 to
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Niels Breet ni...@maemo.org 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
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
(
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
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Jeremiah Foster
jerem...@jeremiahfoster.com 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
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 upload a
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 number
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 with the same
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
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 a
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 the
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 can
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 :-)
code
19 matches
Mail list logo
