On Oct 23, 2006, at 4:46 PM, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:43:02 -0700 Blake Barnett
[EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
On Oct 23, 2006, at 4:04 PM, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:59:36 +0200 Jakob Haufe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday, 24 October 2006, at 10:13:21 (-0700),
Blake Barnett wrote:
Obviously these packages wouldn't get into Debian this way. Once
the version changes to 0.17, it won't matter anymore.
Are you sure? Epoch in RPM supercedes version, and I was under the
impression that it worked similarly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Jennings schreef:
On Tuesday, 24 October 2006, at 10:13:21 (-0700),
Blake Barnett wrote:
Obviously these packages wouldn't get into Debian this way. Once
the version changes to 0.17, it won't matter anymore.
Are you sure? Epoch in
On Oct 24, 2006, at 10:35 AM, Michael Jennings wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 October 2006, at 10:13:21 (-0700),
Blake Barnett wrote:
Obviously these packages wouldn't get into Debian this way. Once
the version changes to 0.17, it won't matter anymore.
Are you sure? Epoch in RPM supercedes
On Tuesday, 24 October 2006, at 10:48:16 (-0700),
Blake Barnett wrote:
If it does, it's not documented in the policy manual.
Seems to me that the only valid purpose for an Epoch would be to act
as a superversion in case of dramatic versioning convention changes
(such as MMDD - X.Y.Z) and
On Oct 24, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Michael Jennings wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 October 2006, at 10:48:16 (-0700),
Blake Barnett wrote:
And even still, it shouldn't matter. If people are going to change
their source for the packages (especially going to the main
repository), they need to remove all
On Tuesday, 24 October 2006, at 12:09:11 (-0700),
Blake Barnett wrote:
We did it because it was a support nightmare to explain why the main
repository packages always took precedence, even though their
version was lower. It works as expected for users this way.
No, using an epoch version
On Oct 24, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Michael Jennings wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 October 2006, at 12:09:11 (-0700),
Blake Barnett wrote:
We did it because it was a support nightmare to explain why the main
repository packages always took precedence, even though their
version was lower. It works as
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
oh = hoorray for packaging stupidity. at no point in e's past release history
have we actually broken versions and not incremented a version numerically
from
the previous one - there just is no need to use debian's epoch.
fan-bloody-tastic. :(
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:09:11 -0700 Blake Barnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
On Oct 24, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Michael Jennings wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 October 2006, at 10:48:16 (-0700),
Blake Barnett wrote:
And even still, it shouldn't matter. If people are going to change
their source
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:48:16 -0700 Blake Barnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
On Oct 24, 2006, at 10:35 AM, Michael Jennings wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 October 2006, at 10:13:21 (-0700),
Blake Barnett wrote:
Obviously these packages wouldn't get into Debian this way. Once
the version
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:33:01 +0200 Jakob Haufe [EMAIL PROTECTED] babbled:
Hi all!
I'm building debian packages of e17 for my private use for a couple of
months now. During that, I had to change some of the autofoo and
debian/* files to make the packages build correctly.
I asked on
Hi all!
I'm building debian packages of e17 for my private use for a couple of
months now. During that, I had to change some of the autofoo and
debian/* files to make the packages build correctly.
I asked on #edevelop where to send these diffs, Lutin told me to put
them here.
So here they are.
13 matches
Mail list logo
