On Mon, May 17, 1999 at 11:13:20AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote: > > Chrony-1.1 is out and I've packaged it to replace chrony-1.02 only to find > > that dpkg claims that 1.1 < 1.02. What should I do? > > The authoritative answer to this question is in the packaging manual. It's > also quite amusing: > > Note that the purpose of epochs is to allow us to leave behind mistakes > in version numbering, and to cope with situations where the version > numbering changes. It is _not_ there to cope with version numbers > containing strings of letters which dpkg' cannot interpret (such as > ALPHA' or pre-'), or with silly orderings (the author of this manual > has heard of a package whose versions went 1.1', 1.2', 1.3', 1', 2.1', > 2.2', 2' and so forth). > > If an upstream package has problematic version numbers they should be > converted to a sane form for use in the Version' field. Did we EVER agree on a "sane form for use in the Version field"? =p -- Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE The Source Comes First! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- <stu> apt: !bugs <apt> !bugs are stupid <dpkg> apt: are stupid? what's that? <apt> dpkg: i don't know <dpkg> apt: Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder... <apt> i already had it that way, dpkg.
Attachment:
pgp8bFyl9VC19.pgp
Description: PGP signature