Summary: | [Portage] Handling of version numbering is worng | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Patrik Larsson <patrik.mrx> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Gentoo Linux bug wranglers <bug-wranglers> |
Status: | VERIFIED INVALID | ||
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | 2005.0 | ||
Hardware: | AMD64 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Attachments: | Portage handles version numbering wrong, proof |
Description
Patrik Larsson
2006-07-31 13:47:39 UTC
Created attachment 93143 [details]
Portage handles version numbering wrong, proof
This image shows the problem i have regarding portage handling version numbers that is written "the wrong way"
Sure it is a downgrade, that's correct behaviour. Hi! Well, normally, should not the b stand for beta. If the b is gone, we are past beta. beta or not > release candidate numbering. Am i right or is it something i'm missing here? Regards, Patrik (In reply to comment #3) > Well, normally, should not the b stand for beta. If the b is gone, we are past > beta. beta or not > release candidate numbering. Nope... 1.6_b would stand for beta, 1.6b is higher that 1.6a and so on (in alphabetical order ;) |