also sprach tmancill <tony@mancill.com> [2007.01.23.0050 +0000]:
> Sorry to have fogotten the specific rules around this, but would we ever
> run into sorting issues with the revision portion of the package
> version if we use only the revision number?
>
> i.e. is 2.1~svn-r91 > 2.1~svn-r115 ?
Good thinking, you got me there for a second. But it does not seem
like this is a worry:
lapse:~> dpkg --compare-versions 2.1~svn-r91 gt 2.1~svn-r115 || echo no
no
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>
: :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
"all i know is that i'm being sued for unfair business
practices by micro$oft. hello pot? it's kettle on line two."
-- michael robertson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)