| 1 |
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:18:23 -0700 (PDT), BRM wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > > 2.2.0_alpha1 comes *after* 2.2_rc99 |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > It should also come after 2.2, but I appear to have missed that |
| 6 |
> > release. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Why? 2.2 == 2.2.0 |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Not in portage's eyes. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> So 2.2.0_alpha1 would make a logical progression. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Since when did an alpha come after release candidates? That's anything |
| 15 |
but logical. In order to fool portage into considering the alpha to be |
| 16 |
later, the version had to be bumped from 2.2 to 2.2.0. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Top Oxymorons Number 20: Synthetic natural gas |
Archives