Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions

To: Debian Mentors Mailing List <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
From: joshk@triplehelix.org (Joshua Kwan)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 19:10:26 -0800
Message-id: <[🔎] 20040105031026.GF5518@triplehelix.org>
Mail-followup-to: joshk@triplehelix.org, Debian Mentors Mailing List <debian-mentors@lists.debian.org>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20040105020744.GD9654@inferi.kami.home>
References: <[🔎] 20040105004148.GB9654@inferi.kami.home> <[🔎] 20040105010912.GA13836@enc.com.au> <[🔎] 20040105020744.GD9654@inferi.kami.home>

On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 03:07:44AM +0100, Mattia Dongili wrote:
> So I'd go for an epoch, but I'm still puzzled here: is 20040104:1.1-1 ok
> or should I go with 1.1.20040104-1 as I see that

No, 1:1.1-1 is greater than any version number without an epoch.
2:* is greater than any 1:*, and so on.
-- 
Joshua Kwan

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to:

References:
- cpufreqd braindamaged versions
  - From: Mattia Dongili <dongili@supereva.it>
- Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
  - From: csmall@enc.com.au (Craig Small)
- Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
  - From: Mattia Dongili <dongili@supereva.it>

Prev by Date: Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
Next by Date: Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
Previous by thread: Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
Next by thread: Re: cpufreqd braindamaged versions
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread