On 20 Feb, 2010, at 12:50 PM, David Lowe wrote:
Sourceforge is giving a 404 error when looking for
freeciv-2.2.0-rc1.tar.bz2, it has freeciv-2.2.0-RC1.tar.bz2.
D'oh! I was smacking my head over why i kept getting this error even
after 2.2.0 became an official release. This failure
Another alternative to dealing with alpha/a, beta/b, RC/rc names in
software versions is to put the descriptor into the revision field. So
freeciv-2.2.0-RC1 under this mechanism would end up being
Version: 2.2.0
Revision: 0.0rc1.1
The first 0 in revision means that when the final release is
On 17 Feb, 2010, at 7:09 PM, David Lowe wrote:
The version number i have used is 2.2.0-RC1, which is faithful to the
upstream version. Obviously i need to be less faithful, but what is the
suggested way to handle this? Would 2.2.0-rc1 cause any problems?
I seem to run into a bit
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 12:50:24PM -0800, David Lowe wrote:
On 17 Feb, 2010, at 7:09 PM, David Lowe wrote:
The version number i have used is 2.2.0-RC1, which is faithful to the
upstream version. Obviously i need to be less faithful, but what is the
suggested way to handle this? Would
Am 18.02.2010 um 19:43 schrieb Charles Lepple:
On Feb 18, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Daniel Macks dma...@netspace.org wrote:
[...]
yup, that's the final version (2.2.0) I was thinking of.
Does Fink handle tildes? I think the Debian convention is 2.2.0~rc1.
No, it doesn't handle these. I made a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/19/10 12:24 AM, David Lowe wrote:
On 18 Feb, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
Or rather, 2.2.0 2.2.0-rc1
Oh, i guess i was being a bit myopic there. Thanks for pointing out my
error. In any case, i wasn't planning on
It gets even more interesting with perl modules. For instance for
Module-Build they go from 0.35 - 0.3501 - 0.3502 - 0.36. I'm just
skipping the 0.350x ones, it would be a big mess otherwise :-)
- Koen.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Alexander Hansen
alexanderk.han...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 Feb, 2010, at 8:10 PM, Charles Lepple wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:09 PM, David Lowe doctorjl...@verizon.net wrote:
The version number i have used is 2.2.0-RC1, which is faithful to
the upstream version. Obviously i need to be less faithful, but what is the
suggested way
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/18/10 11:52 AM, David Lowe wrote:
On 17 Feb, 2010, at 8:10 PM, Charles Lepple wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:09 PM, David Lowe doctorjl...@verizon.net wrote:
The version number i have used is 2.2.0-RC1, which is faithful to
the
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 08:52:24AM -0800, David Lowe wrote:
On 17 Feb, 2010, at 8:10 PM, Charles Lepple wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:09 PM, David Lowe doctorjl...@verizon.net
wrote:
The version number i have used is 2.2.0-RC1, which is faithful to
the upstream version.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/18/10 1:36 PM, Daniel Macks wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 08:52:24AM -0800, David Lowe wrote:
On 17 Feb, 2010, at 8:10 PM, Charles Lepple wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:09 PM, David Lowe doctorjl...@verizon.net
wrote:
The
On 18 Feb, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
Or rather, 2.2.0 2.2.0-rc1
Oh, i guess i was being a bit myopic there. Thanks for pointing out my
error. In any case, i wasn't planning on releasing my info file until FreeCiv
had a final version. I should just be able to force
I'm experimentally trying to produce a new info file for latest version
of FreeCiv, as a way of working myself through the packaging tutorial. The
package validates successfully, but then i get this:
$ fink -m --build-as-nobody rebuild freeciv
Password:
Scanning package description
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:09 PM, David Lowe doctorjl...@verizon.net wrote:
The version number i have used is 2.2.0-RC1, which is faithful to
the upstream version. Obviously i need to be less faithful, but what is the
suggested way to handle this? Would 2.2.0-rc1 cause any problems?
14 matches
Mail list logo
