Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta version to RC

2001-04-13 Thread Len Morgan
Lamar Owen writes: One quick note -- since 'R' 'b', the RC RPM's must be forced to install with --oldpackage, as RPM does a simple strcmp of version numbers -- 7.1RC3 7.1beta1, for instance. Just force it with --oldpackage if you have a 7.1beta RPM already installed. Couldn't this

Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta version to RC

2001-04-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Lamar Owen writes: One quick note -- since 'R' 'b', the RC RPM's must be forced to install with --oldpackage, as RPM does a simple strcmp of version numbers -- 7.1RC3 7.1beta1, for instance. Just force it with --oldpackage if you have a 7.1beta RPM already installed. Btw., are you aware

Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta version to RC

2001-04-11 Thread Lamar Owen
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Lamar Owen writes: One quick note -- since 'R' 'b', the RC RPM's must be forced to install with --oldpackage, as RPM does a simple strcmp of version numbers -- 7.1RC3 7.1beta1, for instance. Just force it with --oldpackage if you have a 7.1beta RPM already

Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta version to RC

2001-04-11 Thread Oliver Elphick
Lamar Owen wrote: Last time I looked at the documentation for the serial tag, its use was strongly discouraged. But that _has_ been awhile -- maybe it could be useful. But I would prefer the whole version numbering thingtobe fixed, as the Debian packages have the same issue -- and I

Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta version to RC

2001-04-11 Thread Lamar Owen
Oliver Elphick wrote: Lamar Owen wrote: as the Debian packages have the same issue -- and I don't know if .deb has an analog to Serial:. We have epochs, that is, the package version is preceded by an integer and a colon, which overrides every other part of the version and release

Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta version to RC

2001-04-11 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Lamar Owen writes: Yes, I am, actually. But it seems a broken way of dealing with it. Although I do have another idea, thanks to Trond. Rather than package '7.1RC4-1' I could package '7.1-0.1RC4' -- giving a straight versioning. I could progress from '7.1-0.1beta1.1' through

Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta version to RC

2001-04-11 Thread Lamar Owen
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Lamar Owen writes: Yes, I am, actually. But it seems a broken way of dealing with it. Although I do have another idea, thanks to Trond. Rather than package '7.1RC4-1' I could package '7.1-0.1RC4' -- giving a straight versioning. I could progress from

AW: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta version to RC

2001-04-09 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas SB
However, 7.1beta6 to 7.1rc4 to 7.1.0 would be an ok progression, as 7.1 7.1.0, I think (saying that without having tested it could be dangerous :-)). I like this 7.1.0, it would also help to clarify what exact version is at hand. People tend to use shorthands like 7.1 to refer to any

Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta version to RC

2001-04-08 Thread The Hermit Hacker
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Lamar Owen wrote: One quick note -- since 'R' 'b', the RC RPM's must be forced to install with --oldpackage, as RPM does a simple strcmp of version numbers -- 7.1RC3 7.1beta1, for instance. Just force it with --oldpackage if you have a 7.1beta RPM already installed.

Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta version to RC

2001-04-08 Thread Oliver Elphick
The Hermit Hacker wrote: On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Lamar Owen wrote: One quick note -- since 'R' 'b', the RC RPM's must be forced to install with --oldpackage, as RPM does a simple strcmp of version numbers -- 7.1RC3 7.1beta1, for instance. Just force it with --oldpackage if you

Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta version to RC

2001-04-08 Thread Peter Eisentraut
The Hermit Hacker writes: On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Lamar Owen wrote: One quick note -- since 'R' 'b', the RC RPM's must be forced to install with --oldpackage, as RPM does a simple strcmp of version numbers -- 7.1RC3 7.1beta1, for instance. Just force it with --oldpackage if you have a

Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta version to RC

2001-04-08 Thread The Hermit Hacker
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, Oliver Elphick wrote: The Hermit Hacker wrote: On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Lamar Owen wrote: One quick note -- since 'R' 'b', the RC RPM's must be forced to install with --oldpackage, as RPM does a simple strcmp of version numbers -- 7.1RC3 7.1beta1, for

Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta version to RC

2001-04-08 Thread Oliver Elphick
The Hermit Hacker wrote:or development: That means the final release of 7.1 will be called 7.2. Bugfix releases will then be 7.2.x. Meanwhile new development versions will be 7.3.x which will finally be released as 7.4, and so on... Not in this life time ... we are not going to

Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta version to RC

2001-04-08 Thread The Hermit Hacker
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001, Oliver Elphick wrote: The Hermit Hacker wrote:or development: That means the final release of 7.1 will be called 7.2. Bugfix releases will then be 7.2.x. Meanwhile new development versions will be 7.3.x which will finally be released as 7.4, and so on...

Re: [HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta version to RC

2001-04-08 Thread Lamar Owen
The Hermit Hacker wrote: We do, we follow the scheme as used by ... the BSD camp :) Be thankful we don't go all the way and use 7.2-RELEASE too :) If we had 7.1-CURRENT, 7.1-RELEASE, and 7.1-STABLE, the versioning comparision would be just fine -- better than now. As it stands, an upgrade

[HACKERS] RPM upgrade caveats going from a beta version to RC

2001-04-07 Thread Lamar Owen
One quick note -- since 'R' 'b', the RC RPM's must be forced to install with --oldpackage, as RPM does a simple strcmp of version numbers -- 7.1RC3 7.1beta1, for instance. Just force it with --oldpackage if you have a 7.1beta RPM already installed. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter