[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: possible bug with version number sorting
From: |
Stig Brautaset |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: possible bug with version number sorting |
Date: |
Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:45:17 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Dec 08 2003, Paul wrote:
> > In a particular category (call it "foo"), I have the following
> > versions:
> >
> > foo--devel--0.1
> > foo--devel--0.1.1
> > foo--devel--0.1.2
> > foo--devel--0.1.3
> > foo--devel--0.1.4
>
> Quoting the tutorial:
> "Notice that version numbers are always two positive integers, separated
> by a period. These are sometimes called the major and minor version."
The tutorial is outdated in that respect. Arch (tla) have supported
"unlimited"[0] length of version numbers for quite some time.
[0] well, for any practical purpose anyway.
Stig
--
brautaset.org
- [Gnu-arch-users] possible bug with version number sorting, Mirian Crzig Lennox, 2003/12/08
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] possible bug with version number sorting, Paul Pelzl, 2003/12/08
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] possible bug with version number sorting, Robert Collins, 2003/12/08
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: possible bug with version number sorting,
Stig Brautaset <=
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: possible bug with version number sorting, Miles Bader, 2003/12/08
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: possible bug with version number sorting, Mirian Crzig Lennox, 2003/12/11
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: possible bug with version number sorting, Tom Lord, 2003/12/11
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: possible bug with version number sorting, Mirian Crzig Lennox, 2003/12/11
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: possible bug with version number sorting, Tom Lord, 2003/12/12
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: possible bug with version number sorting, Mirian Crzig Lennox, 2003/12/13