On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 12:16 +0200, Bart Martens wrote: > On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 11:57 +0200, Bart Martens wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 11:49 +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > > * Bart Martens <bartm@debian.org> [2007-05-01 11:21]: > > > > Another approach for identifying packages to be updated in Debian to > > > > newer upstream releases is by comparing Debian with Ubuntu. Here is a > > > > list of packages that are newer in Ubuntu than in Debian, grouped by > > > > maintainer: > > > > http://people.debian.org/~bartm/borg/outdated.html > > > > > > The first package in your list shows that you're not handling epochs > > > properly. 1.0~rc1-13 vs 2:1.0~rc1-0ubuntu9. Debian isn't out of date > > > here. You need to ignore epochs. > > > > True, thanks for this comment. I'll fix that asap. > > > > > > Err, for some packages the "epoch" must not be ignored to detect > outdated packages. But you're right that for this package in particular > it is better to ignore the "epoch". I'll see what I can do. Should be better now. If you still see false positives, then I'm very interested. Regards, Bart Martens
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part