Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should _p0 be allowed as a version suffix?
Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 01:43:08
Message-Id: 463D31FD.4050308@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should _p0 be allowed as a version suffix? by Stephen Bennett
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA1
3
4 Stephen Bennett wrote:
5 >> or should be change the version comparison behavior so that
6 >> implicit _p0 is less than explicit _p0?
7 >
8 > No.
9
10 Let's sure we talking about the same thing when we say "implicit
11 _p0". The patch attached to bug 171259 will make ntp-4.2.4_p0
12 greater than ntp-4.2.4, but ntp-4.2.4_p will still be considered
13 equal to ntp-4.2.4_p0.
14
15 Zac
16
17 [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171259
18 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
19 Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (GNU/Linux)
20
21 iD8DBQFGPTH7/ejvha5XGaMRAsVbAKDLYv+RTfFe8dqF9Wvo1q0tGLce1ACfbPWU
22 DQNtsFDzCk16hwwl6vuq2CQ=
23 =O+7O
24 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
25 --
26 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies