Package names and the year 2000.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I have been reporting as a bug all packages containing dates in the
version number *not* in the form "YYYY.MM.DD" or "YYYY.MM".
True: We can fix this little inconsistency even after 2000, because, for
example, 2002.01 > 97.03 in dpkg's eyes, but IMHO it is a "shame" that we
are still using 2-digit years in 1997.
This is a list of packages for which no bug has been reported yet:
doc/doc-linux-es_97.03-2.deb
doc/doc-linux-fr_97.05-1.deb
doc/pj97n09_2.deb
doc/pj97n08_2.deb
doc/doc-linux-it_97.02-1.deb
doc/doc-linux-de_97.08-1.deb
doc/doc-linux_97.09-1.deb
doc/doc-linux-html_97.09-1.deb
doc/doc-linux-text_97.09-1.deb
graphics/picon-domains_97.06.26-1.deb
graphics/picon-users_97.05.19-1.deb
graphics/picon-weather_97.04.16-1.deb
graphics/picon-unknown_97.04.16-1.deb
graphics/picon-news_97.04.16-1.deb
graphics/picon-misc_97.04.16-1.deb
devel/pgcc_2.7.2.970808-1.deb
math/octave-ci_97.06-1.deb
sound/mctools-lite_970129-1.deb
otherosfs/ntfs_970802-1.deb
otherosfs/wine_0.0.970804-1.deb
otherosfs/ibcs_970513-5.deb
Thanks.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCVAgUBNBWoTyqK7IlOjMLFAQHvWgP+J/kix1H1Daa7GqP1cX4aw1F+2UXBpcoH
Wksy791xi9m0e/H9QX5yOYiTcQ/+8V0M9S4x4ym5S6frCIktKjFGcxbN9i/OlXVq
pQGQcWo+Bg1skbarhzm/t/oSbEAEwAhHuPSySOhk5vIYVaWgD0e2z1MDDMFVfQMY
ut5dtrsxHJI=
=vt1G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: