On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Allan McRae <allan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 Allan: Thanks. That was my assumption, but as engineers like to say "When you assume something you make an ass out of u and me. Myra -- Life's fun when your sick and psychotic!
