1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.CURIOSA

  • Debian part of a version number when epoch is bumped

    From Holger Levsen@21:1/5 to Lars Wirzenius on Tue Feb 6 15:20:01 2018
    XPost: linux.debian.devel

    On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 03:34:50PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
    That would completely ruin my plan to only ever release version 1.0 of
    all of my future projects, but increase the epoch instead.

    you are very evil indeed.


    --
    cheers,
    Holger

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEuL9UE3sJ01zwJv6dCRq4VgaaqhwFAlp5uAIACgkQCRq4Vgaa qhzwQg/+LkCULHih9cp8F+lAnTKTpRjqNToVKUPTEz4pDhCrJ5Q2SHWodHgnYF0O N1ICwRK88d13CYTSHBDYAySU1B1EaYDLyPuii+MnGeu355WsYKQLAFFJAwd+SSyj 7kKz0yFCb+/1+v2/eaH6f69cuLXBHBA/SUJ9LGvvOEhxBKdLHaXYHuksXNTWqqdO ztF+SNL4651cIAGsvbiSwhHjCh8j5ryO+C4I22MMzPRsoLUil2K5LbHCoAB3ReqL 9JtMX//P/xfd5ZLQAvT5XTFClNTk6Nxmfra7y2WxnQ/ji5YnIwtnuALtJxJoAXNm /bTLz8Iz9QZDWO5BfZn+EO6u+FP5Q2c7L19uZI8FgMxZtef6dO/kUCyhiGBBeU3h 8v2VvSVYiMCCDe8DS930Evx61Rc7dT4xDAIlxpo/8LkLeMsaq4Yn10iwlwoieEcO RH8AbAg7KplWy14Sgm+Fnz1fgyaw5KuLUw1mrNoWBBvnv6lguhz+5tjg87hTGFEt 2AxXbT5JRsT6yqFTO9rPzS0c63w9XwHpNwyQrYlDueZnafTtAOYduJDR1GQ4C4HH euQfqYKaFH2dnOw4G4KWXLIyOuuCmq2M/5tr3ynUNnICaCVlY9ALmskRbckkmDWc U7+uWhgmiJDW/+ClQ4MLT+QfEa5BpIBqzI/uarpXqibP6Pld4x8=
    =408h
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Wouter Verhelst@21:1/5 to Jonathan McDowell on Wed Feb 7 18:00:02 2018
    XPost: linux.debian.devel

    On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 09:18:03AM +0000, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
    You can't put a : in a filename on a FAT filesystem.

    Interestingly enough, you *can* put a : in a filename on an NTFS
    filesystem, if you do it with ntfs-3g. Windows won't like it, though.
    Yes, I found that out the hard way ;-)

    (though this was several years ago, and ntfs-3g might have been patched
    in the mean time to no longer support that, but I have no way of testing anymore...)

    --
    Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!?

    -- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008
    Hacklab

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andrey Rahmatullin@21:1/5 to Wouter Verhelst on Wed Feb 7 19:00:02 2018
    On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 05:50:23PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
    On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 09:18:03AM +0000, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
    You can't put a : in a filename on a FAT filesystem.

    Interestingly enough, you *can* put a : in a filename on an NTFS
    filesystem, if you do it with ntfs-3g. Windows won't like it, though.
    Yes, I found that out the hard way ;-)
    AFAIK you can do that with anything that skips the Win32 subsystem as it's
    the only place where the check is enforced (for backward compatibility).
    You can also read it back. Maybe you can do that even via Win32 using an
    UNC path.

    --
    WBR, wRAR

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQJhBAABCgBLFiEEolIP6gqGcKZh3YxVM2L3AxpJkuEFAlp7PhstFIAAAAAAFQAP cGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3Jnd3JhckBkZWJpYW4ub3JnAAoJEDNi9wMaSZLh NRoP/36qz4rjkbUhxLPdp42hvQE0RcKx9D2RGzaBdeAtBbm8eDsMO7mWzvO1iAZG kp97KwHgeuh0ITr3MHw39jyCT64lqph+zkXgmBgpTo2vYogJFJP0gaqXgyy05tvX t5UXtMXw6/obd23GOV4R3DCSCgI7PfKy4N3LMy3E3lTG9sGng9GyM0+fJukoljbY ZPwP1Qcc0V7mI9hs1s+5dsuI2ctJ2TqbECEDZLnelJmomUpcBUU2CjR+Q8XrNqSd HfTr8NcFOv68HumwlBtLrPtusswFAXRtTYhry9rdPfX8jh+K3dFlBNZ3MMjl6LFK p+HdV4sAahAMdmsuKPh8nC3jmAc42FKq49JpBUYjhNnb9TcuEk0pBDxLnP71fObG pF9NuZzSZq6JksQmITOR9cPmYy1IEzza2lCLy5sZHgbK4b4TtKmSkdNvbh5BwHS+ PRSTAZf8fhq65mtML+NcpuLuRCFOrGB1tNdA4xjNMiYxEXZPZyWQR1Bo2LSl63xq 6oFbIuGoKl7zjq5N5OosgTToUNV6HqsN4OGoJzvyQIaE5uF2Lm4dh/ku2Yv4ncr6 QCHGOPScc1n7WYWxaNgIgS5dJ4DwylHbKEHgLaixLOSapP24IG7Q/P90F8cExnlG Zevi9fuR9eXVjpxVBDQz6VUNO+pKHLGHRUZI8xNs1mB4iadI
    =v95A
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Thibaut Paumard@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 15 13:30:01 2018
    XPost: linux.debian.devel

    (Please follow-up to debian-curiosa)

    Le 15/02/2018 à 11:41, Simon McVittie a écrit :

    We don't have to look far to find a weird versioning scheme that can't
    be represented without epochs: our largest competitor in the field of general-purpose operating systems has such a versioning scheme. Imagine
    we had a package that followed the same versioning scheme as Windows (I
    could imagine a parallel universe in which Wine used the version number
    of the version of Windows that it claims to emulate). If we packaged
    that, using the "marketing version" wherever it's numeric or making up something reasonable wherever it isn't, we might have had a versioning
    scheme like this:

    Well, as it happens, all the Windows versions also have a number that
    sorts properly, but does not always match the commercial number:



    3.1
    3.11
    95

    4.00

    98

    4.10

    2000

    NT 5.0 (which we could have translated as 5.0+NT, for instance)

    1:5.1+XP # or 2001+XP or something

    NT 5.1 (5.1+NT)

    1:5.2+Vista # or 2006+Vista or something

    NT 6.0

    1:7

    Funnily, this is NT 6.1!

    1:8

    NT 6.2

    1:8.1

    NT 6.3

    1:10

    NT 10.0

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Microsoft_Windows_versions

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)