Re: Pacman behaviour comparing numerical versions for package upgrades

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Pacman behaviour comparing numerical versions for package upgrades
From: Florian Pritz <bluewind@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:35:11 +0200
In-reply-to: <CAE6xBH3T4WiOTDfy-OgvmEPh27kyWFWe3ruMxqXHEy1EVgE0-A@mail.gmail.com>
Mail-followup-to: arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Organization: Server-Speed Network
Reply-to: General Discussion about Arch Linux <arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120616 Thunderbird/13.0.1

On 29.06.2012 07:50, Myra Nelson wrote:
> The developer changed his numbering scheme after 1.5000
> to 1.51.

In that case you should add epoch=1 to the PKGBUILD.

-- 
Florian Pritz

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Pacman behaviour comparing numerical versions for package upgrades
  - From: Myra Nelson

References:
- Pacman behaviour comparing numerical versions for package upgrades
  - From: Myra Nelson

Prev by Date: Re: Pacman behaviour comparing numerical versions for package upgrades
Next by Date: Re: Pacman behaviour comparing numerical versions for package upgrades
Previous by thread: Re: Pacman behaviour comparing numerical versions for package upgrades
Next by thread: Re: Pacman behaviour comparing numerical versions for package upgrades
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux Wireless] [Linux Kernel] [ATH6KL] [Linux Bluetooth] [Linux Netdev] [Kernel Newbies] [Share Photos] [IDE] [Security] [Git] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Linux ATA RAID] [Samba] [Device Mapper]

Powered by Linux