Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Stephen Bennett <spb@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 14:58:40
Message-Id: 20070506161056.38ff9d88@maya
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should _p0 be allowed as a version suffix? by Zac Medico
1 On Sat, 05 May 2007 18:40:13 -0700
2 Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > Let's sure we talking about the same thing when we say "implicit
5 > _p0". The patch attached to bug 171259 will make ntp-4.2.4_p0
6 > greater than ntp-4.2.4, but ntp-4.2.4_p will still be considered
7 > equal to ntp-4.2.4_p0.
8
9 OK, that change makes sense, and is in fact what PMS in its current
10 wording requires. One or the other should be changed to match, and I
11 think the PMS version at the moment makes more sense.
12 --
13 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Should _p0 be allowed as a version suffix? Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>