On 29/06/12 16:01, martin kalcher wrote: > Am 29.06.2012 07:58, schrieb Allan McRae: >> On 29/06/12 15:50, Myra Nelson wrote: >>> "Ignoring upgrade from perl-datetime-format-strptime from 1.51-1 >>> to 1.5000-1" >>> >>> No complaints as it's easy to fix, I was just wondering about the >>> reasoning. I'll jump out on a limb here and assume it's because the >>> repo package has 4 digits then the package version after the decimal >>> point and my package has two digits then the package version after the >>> decimal point. The developer changed his numbering scheme after 1.5000 >>> to 1.51. >>> >>> Is this the correct behaviour for pacman? >>> >> >> >> 5000 > 51 > > So we dont need this: > >>> I'm used to the warning package ??? local is newer than extra ???. > Just to be clear: pacman sees 1.5000 as being newer than 1.51 as 5000 > 51. So that warning is correct, because only perl package versioning thinks that 5000 < 51 ... Allan
