On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> 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!