Hi Markus, Chris,
> I think using 0.99.22.4-1+wheezy4 would have been correct in this case
> but I would continue with 0.99.22.4-1+wheezy3+deb7u2 now. In the light
> of our proposed change to reportbug it makes even sense to append
> +deb7u1 because this is the string we are looking for when we wa
Hi Hugo,
> I'm currently preparing the next quagga update, but found out that the
> current version number of quagga in wheezy is pretty unusual:
>
> 0.99.22.4-1+wheezy3+deb7u1
[…]
> Is there a specific reason for that ?
No, it was an accident on my part. Presumably blindly calling dch without
d
Am 30.10.2017 um 16:47 schrieb Hugo Lefeuvre:
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently preparing the next quagga update, but found out that the
> current version number of quagga in wheezy is pretty unusual:
>
> 0.99.22.4-1+wheezy3+deb7u1
>
> I'd have expected it to be 0.99.22.4-1+wheezy4.
>
> Is there a specif
Hi,
I'm currently preparing the next quagga update, but found out that the
current version number of quagga in wheezy is pretty unusual:
0.99.22.4-1+wheezy3+deb7u1
I'd have expected it to be 0.99.22.4-1+wheezy4.
Is there a specific reason for that ?
Since 0.99.22.4-1+wheezy3+deb7u1 < 0.99.22.4
