On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 09:07:54AM -0000, Lo??c Minier wrote:
> Looking back at the changelog, I used -2~hardy1 while -2 was already in
> Debian; what I meant to use was -3~hardy1, which might explain why this
> was confusing. Another option would be -2+hardy1 which might be
> clearer.
Right, yes. -3~hardy1 makes total sense -- -3 didn't exist yet. :)
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 09:07:54AM -0000, Lo??c Minier wrote:
> Looking back at the changelog, I used -2~hardy1 while -2 was already in
> Debian; what I meant to use was -3~hardy1, which might explain why this
> was confusing. Another option would be -2+hardy1 which might be
> clearer.
Right, yes. -3~hardy1 makes total sense -- -3 didn't exist yet. :)
Thanks!