Your message dated 01 Nov 1998 01:27:20 -600
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line [Debian Installer [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
debian-policy_2.5.0.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Your message dated 01 Nov 1998 01:27:20 -600
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line [Debian Installer [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
debian-policy_2.5.0.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Your message dated 01 Nov 1998 01:27:20 -600
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line [Debian Installer [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
debian-policy_2.5.0.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Hi,
Santiago == Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Santiago [ I would suggest to make MMDD the recommended choice
Santiago in this case,points are not allowed in ISO dates, only
Santiago hyphens or nothing, I think ].
Fine by me A new proposal coming up..
I am now looking
Hi
James == James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
James Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Native Debian packages (i.e., packages which have been written
especially for Debian) whose version numbers include dates should
always use the `-MM-DD' format.
James That's a
Hi
Joey == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joey I prefer to take a don't fix it until it breaks approach.
You r approach below, with all due respect, is already broken
as a policy proposal. We need to be general, and consistent, with the
numbering scheme when we talk about making
[Amendment 98.11.01] bashism in Packaging Manual
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
$Revision: 1.4 $
Copyright Notice
Copyright © 1998 by Manoj
[AMENDMENT 98.11.01] time stamps should be preserved
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
$Revision: 1.2 $
Copyright Notice
Copyright © 1998 by Manoj
[AMENDMENT 98.11.01] Package build process must be non-interactive
--
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
$Revision: 1.2 $
Copyright Notice
Copyright ©
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Just because one package has been lucky so far is not grouds
for not changing a broken scheme.
That was en example of why this policy is often unneccessary.
Joey If a new version comes out in 2 days, of course, it will not
Joey version compare correctly, and
[PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates
-
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
$Revision: 1.4 $
Copyright Notice
Copyright © 1998 by Manoj
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
retitle 7890 [ACCEPTED 98.10.05] Policy manual contradicts itself about
including docs
Bug#7890: [AMENDMENT] Policy manual contradicts itself about including docs
Changed bug title.
(By the way, that bug is currently marked as done.)
retitle 21185
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
retitle 14701 [Amendment 98.11.01] bashism in Packaging Manual
Bug#14701: [PROPOSED] Fix bashism in Packaging Manual
Changed bug title.
retitle 17620 [AMENDMENT 98.11.01] Package build process must be
non-interactive
Bug#17620: [PROPOSED] Package
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
retitle 11094 [PROPOSED] Missing UUCP-locking info
Bug#11094: debian-policy: Missing UUCP-locking info
Changed bug title.
severity 11094 wishlist
Bug#11094: [PROPOSED] Missing UUCP-locking info
Severity set to `wishlist'.
retitle 20373
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
However, in some cases where the upstream version number is based on a
date (e.g., a development `snapshot' release) dpkg cannot handle these
version numbers currently, without epochs. For example, dpkg will
consider `96May01' to be greater than
Hi
Joey == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joey Do you claim that our version numbers are in general consitent?
No but that is no reason that date based versions should not
be consistent.
Joey Why try to add consitency to this little corner of the version
Joey number space?
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Because in this case the version number conveys something
beyond just a mere number: and consistency in nomenclature helps
developers, and users, to decipher the version.
Please bear in mind that most people who run into a version number that has
been changed in
On 01 Nov 1998 02:25:47 -600, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[PROPOSED]: About versions based on dates
I second this.
--
Joel Rosdahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PGP-key available via finger and WWW)
http://rosdahl.ml.org/joel/
On Oct 30, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To prevent having to use epochs for every new upstream version, the
version number should be changed to the following format in such
cases: `1996-05-01', `1996-12-24'. It is up to the maintainer whether
What about 960501?
On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 02:05:14AM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[PROPOSED] time stamps should be preserved
--
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
$Revision: 1.1 $
[...]
On Sun, Nov 01, 1998 at 01:50:57AM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[AMENDMENT 98.11.01] Package build process must be non-interactive
--
[...]
1.2. People Seconding the Proposal
--
I
To prevent having to use epochs for every new upstream version, the
version number should be changed to the following format in such
cases: `19960501', `19961224'.
...
I am now looking for seconds for this proposal.
Seconded.
David
--
David Frey (B98D36A9) =
On Sun, Nov 01, 1998 at 02:03:47AM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[AMENDMENT 98.11.01] Fixing of typo in packaging manual
--
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
$Revision: 1.2
Your message dated 01 Nov 1998 01:27:20 -600
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line [Debian Installer [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
debian-policy_2.5.0.0_i386.changes INSTALLED
has caused the attached bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
24 matches
Mail list logo
