On Nov 8, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Sthu Deus wrote:
it seems to me to be weird having those epoches
If all software developers were well behaved and they all co-
operated in their versioning, it would be weird to have epochs. All
versions, from all sources, would be monotonically increasing as
On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:56:02 -0500, Rick Thomas wrote:
On Nov 8, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Sthu Deus wrote:
it seems to me to be weird having those epoches
If all software developers were well behaved and they all co- operated
in their versioning, it would be weird to have epochs. All versions,
Thank You for Your time and answer, Camaleón:
It is provided to allow mistakes in the version numbers of older
versions of a package, and also a package's previous version numbering
schemes, to be left behind.
What does this mean? From other posts in the thread it is still not
clear to me. If
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 15:37:58 +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
Thank You for Your time and answer, Camaleón:
It is provided to allow mistakes in the version numbers of older
versions of a package, and also a package's previous version numbering
schemes, to be left behind.
What does this mean? From
Sthu Deus wrote:
Thank You for Your time and answer, Camaleón:
It is provided to allow mistakes in the version numbers of older
versions of a package, and also a package's previous version numbering
schemes, to be left behind.
What does this mean? From other posts in the thread it is still
Thank You for Your time and answer, Dan:
First, don't think of second or fifth (per
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/epoch) senses of epoch--
the _beginning_ of some period (the meaning used re Unix time).
Think of the first or fourth senses--a _period_ of time.
Then, think of a package
Good time of the day.
When I see this aptitude note:
[UPGRADE] libavcodec52 5:0.6.1+svn20101128-0.2squeeze2 - 5:0.7.7-0.0
how do I interpret number 5: in 5:0.6.1?
Thanks for Your time.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 00:38:32 +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
When I see this aptitude note:
[UPGRADE] libavcodec52 5:0.6.1+svn20101128-0.2squeeze2 - 5:0.7.7-0.0
how do I interpret number 5: in 5:0.6.1?
***
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html
5.6.12 Version
The version
Camaleón noela...@gmail.com writes:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html
epoch
This is a single (generally small) unsigned integer. It may be omitted,
in which case zero is assumed. If it is omitted then the upstream_version
may not contain any colons.
It is
On Sun, 06 Nov 2011, Harry Putnam wrote:
Camaleón noela...@gmail.com writes:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html
epoch
This is a single (generally small) unsigned integer. It may be omitted,
in which case zero is assumed. If it is omitted then the
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote:
Camaleón noela...@gmail.com writes:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html
epoch
This is a single (generally small) unsigned integer. It may be omitted,
in which case zero is assumed. If it is
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org writes:
[...]
What does that non-sensical sounding explanation mean? Its not as if
it is explained at the URL cited.
It is a version override. For an epoch of n, *any* version without an epoch
or with an epoch that is lower than n will be
12 matches
Mail list logo
