Re: package locally compiled gets "upgraded"
On 2009-06-03 09:23 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Wed,03.Jun.09, 01:25:19, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> On 02.06.09 14:29, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> > In <[🔎] 20090602185609.GA26122@fantomas.sk>, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>> > >is 1.2.3lenny1 more than 1.2.3local1? I would want that to get upgraded...
>> >
>> > No. 1.2.3lenny1 < 1.2.3local1 because "lenny" < "local" because 'e' < 'o'.
>>
>> so iif I name it 'local0' and 'lenny1' comes out, it won't be installed
>> because the version number is smaller.
True, therefore it is prudent to use a local version that sorts before
"lenny1", e.g. "custom1".
> I think the correct way is to *append* to the version, not munge it:
>
> 1.2.3lenny1+local1 (I like to use + as separator)
This will not work if the original version is 1.2.3, because
1.2.3+local1 > 1.2.3lenny1 (the version for potential security updates).
Sven
Reply to: