On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Denis Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 13:01 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Jun 21, 2008, at 12:48 PM, Denis Washington wrote:
On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 12:27 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Jun 21, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Denis Washington
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 7:35 PM, devzero2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Denis Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 13:01 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Jun 21, 2008, at 12:48 PM, Denis Washington wrote:
On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 12:27
On Jun 21, 2008, at 1:52 PM, devzero2000 wrote:
(aside) It is time for LSB RPM SPEC to move to RPM4 packaging format
Indeed. That is the raison d'etre for [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I have not
pursued
because of zero (yes zero!) interest from vendor's or LSB.
Not my problem. I will do a IETF
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Jeff Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 21, 2008, at 1:52 PM, devzero2000 wrote:
(aside) It is time for LSB RPM SPEC to move to RPM4 packaging format
Indeed. That is the raison d'etre for [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I have not
pursued
because of zero (yes
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Jeff Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 21, 2008, at 2:45 PM, devzero2000 wrote:
Ok. I already know this and also agreed on the motivation. In the meantime
could be useful
to have more docu on the rpm4 packaging format, almost for the tags. There
is
LSB has chosen to leave upgrade UNSPECIFIED,
and has also chose in the Berlin API to ignore the
fact that both dpkg/rpm versions are a triple of
Epoch/Version/Release.
Pretending that a version string can be anything, opaquely handled,
including E:V-R, or something else, misses the
issue
