Dne neděle 08 Listopad 2009 17:57:10 Jeroen Roovers napsal(a): > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:24:10 +0100 > > Tomáš Chvátal <scarab...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > * Masking beta... > > This masks are good if the software release is KNOWN to break > > previous behaviour or degrade user experience. Otherwise the software > > should not be masked (its TESTING for purpose, not stable). > > Also the maintainer should watch if the testing branch is still > > relevant (why on earth we have masked 4.0.3_p20070403 version of > > screen when newer 4.3 is stable ;]) and remove the branch+mask when > > needed. > > I agree with your criticism (i.e. that the mask should not be there, > especially not for "testing" as what the mask does is *prevent* testing > instead of enabling it), but must note that your version sorting > algorithm appears to be flawed: pkg-vX_pY (for patch level) is always > greater than pkg-vX. > > > Regards, > jer > I agree that _p is newer than that. But if we look on tag of screen-4.0.3 or its release: screen-4.0.2.tar.gz 27-Jan-2004 05:46 821K screen-4.0.2.tar.gz.sig 27-Jan-2004 05:47 65 screen-4.0.3.tar.gz 07-Aug-2008 06:30 821K screen-4.0.3.tar.gz.sig 07-Aug-2008 06:30 65 You see the pattern? It is 1 year newer than it.
Tomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
