Comments on: Ubuntu versions numbers on crack http://www.mattb.net.nz/blog/2008/07/14/ubuntu-versions-numbers-on-crack/ Matt Browns thoughts on Life, Linux and lots of other things... Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:14:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: ScottK http://www.mattb.net.nz/blog/2008/07/14/ubuntu-versions-numbers-on-crack/#comment-2870 ScottK Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:25:34 +0000 http://www.mattb.net.nz/blog/?p=70#comment-2870 Phillip is right. That was the least impact way to undo a bad backport and give users a way to upgrade out of the mess. Ugly but effective. Better I hadn't approved the backport in the first place, but to late for that. [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us '0 which is not a hashcash value. Phillip is right. That was the least impact way to undo a bad backport and give users a way to upgrade out of the mess. Ugly but effective. Better I hadn’t approved the backport in the first place, but to late for that.

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘0 which is not a hashcash value.

]]> By: Markus Thielmann http://www.mattb.net.nz/blog/2008/07/14/ubuntu-versions-numbers-on-crack/#comment-2869 Markus Thielmann Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:47:16 +0000 http://www.mattb.net.nz/blog/?p=70#comment-2869 Adobes Flash 10 Beta 2 (10.0.0.525) has a lower release number than Beta 1 (10.0.1.218). Adobes Flash 10 Beta 2 (10.0.0.525) has a lower release number than Beta 1 (10.0.1.218).

]]> By: Philipp Kern http://www.mattb.net.nz/blog/2008/07/14/ubuntu-versions-numbers-on-crack/#comment-2868 Philipp Kern Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:05:38 +0000 http://www.mattb.net.nz/blog/?p=70#comment-2868 Well, it's documented in the changelog on `https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flashplugin-nonfree'. Ubuntu more or less refrains from using epochs unilaterally[0]. This upload was done to undo a bad backport to hardy, i.e. an old version (9.0.124.0ubuntu2) was uploaded to supersede one with a higher version number (10.0.1.218+10.0.0.525ubuntu1~hardy1). I'm not entirely sure about the first part (10.0.1.218+10.0.0.525ubuntu1). Looking at the changelog 10.0.1.218 was in the archives before and 10.0.0.525 denotes a new "upstream beta" somehow. Might be a screw-up of Adobe, I don't know. [0] The main problem is that the version need to be kept with the epoch for all times until Debian also uses that very epoch. Until then the package needs to be merged manually instead of being synced from Debian. Well, it’s documented in the changelog on `https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flashplugin-nonfree’. Ubuntu more or less refrains from using epochs unilaterally[0]. This upload was done to undo a bad backport to hardy, i.e. an old version (9.0.124.0ubuntu2) was uploaded to supersede one with a higher version number (10.0.1.218+10.0.0.525ubuntu1~hardy1).

I’m not entirely sure about the first part (10.0.1.218+10.0.0.525ubuntu1). Looking at the changelog 10.0.1.218 was in the archives before and 10.0.0.525 denotes a new “upstream beta” somehow. Might be a screw-up of Adobe, I don’t know.

[0] The main problem is that the version need to be kept with the epoch for all times until Debian also uses that very epoch. Until then the package needs to be merged manually instead of being synced from Debian.

]]>