Hi,
Kallioinen Juha (Nokia-D/Helsinki) wrote:
The problem is imho the Application manager, not the version numbers.
What's the point of even displaying the version number in the Application
manager's default view? I personally don't care about the version at all and
I certainly won't
ext Niels Breet wrote:
On Thu, October 29, 2009 09:01, Martin Grimme wrote:
Hi,
hmm, what's so bad about a simple date for a version number? Ubuntu does
it, (Open)Solaris does it, and I started doing it, too, because I found it
less confusing than having version numbers such as e.g. 0.96.5.
On Friday 30 October 2009 11:44:17 Juha Kallioinen wrote:
And a perfectly good one too! :) It's useful not to change the upstream
package version too much so that it's easier to see that a package could
use updating.
I agree with all Juha's points (but I would, wouldn't I!).
Maybe we need
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:55, Graham Cobb g+...@cobb.uk.net wrote:
On Friday 30 October 2009 11:44:17 Juha Kallioinen wrote:
And a perfectly good one too! :) It's useful not to change the upstream
package version too much so that it's easier to see that a package could
use updating.
I agree
On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 13:20 +, Andrew Flegg wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:55, Graham Cobb g+...@cobb.uk.net wrote:
On Friday 30 October 2009 11:44:17 Juha Kallioinen wrote:
And a perfectly good one too! :) It's useful not to change the upstream
package version too much so that it's
Why not simply telling minor release update whenever the version upgrade
is in the epoch part only?
Luca Donaggio
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:15 PM, David Greaves da...@dgreaves.com wrote:
On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 13:20 +, Andrew Flegg wrote:
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:55, Graham Cobb
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 15:15, David Greaves da...@dgreaves.com wrote:
So, the example of 2.0.0+cvs20040908+mp4v2+bmp-0ubuntu6maemo1 would
just appear as 2.0.0 in the view.
/me would be confused.
Why is it upgrading 2.0.0 to 2.0.0 *again* ?
You know what version you've got installed of
