From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Glenn Morris Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#14338: 24.3.50; ELPA package ack fails to install Date: Sun, 05 May 2013 20:20:10 -0400 Message-ID: References: <8640ACE9-21CC-4F2E-8DD0-EFB672F30485@mit.edu> <9ghaikvyr0.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1367799676 27928 80.91.229.3 (6 May 2013 00:21:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 00:21:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: chad , 14338@debbugs.gnu.org To: Leo Liu Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 06 02:21:13 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UZ9B2-0001aU-Ty for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 May 2013 02:21:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60915 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UZ9B2-0003KY-DV for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 05 May 2013 20:21:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34408) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UZ9Az-0003Jc-OL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 05 May 2013 20:21:10 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UZ9Ay-0001lb-U7 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 05 May 2013 20:21:09 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:55084) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UZ9Ay-0001lX-QG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 05 May 2013 20:21:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UZ9Bq-0005fs-KK for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 05 May 2013 20:22:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Glenn Morris Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 00:22:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 14338 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 14338-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B14338.136779966921675 (code B ref 14338); Mon, 06 May 2013 00:22:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 14338) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 May 2013 00:21:09 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59192 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UZ9Ay-0005dV-FC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 05 May 2013 20:21:09 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:58712) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UZ9Ax-0005dL-0v for 14338@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 05 May 2013 20:21:07 -0400 Original-Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UZ9A2-00029i-SA; Sun, 05 May 2013 20:20:10 -0400 X-Spook: JUWTF Freeh assassinate e-cash Rule Psix halcon BATF X-Ran: SqQ2[sTHZZr,Qh!DFHw|{Lo"Z25of{$;VB=$3jELJNzFwJbGHg*!<>Y`IbN(KC8FSGyw4u X-Hue: magenta X-Attribution: GM In-Reply-To: (Leo Liu's message of "Sun, 05 May 2013 10:36:59 +0800") User-Agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:73995 Archived-At: Leo Liu wrote: > On 2013-05-05 02:56 +0800, Glenn Morris wrote: >> Actually, I see the sokoban-pkg.el file contains 1.0.4, so it probably >> works. Clearly there is ambiguity in what "1.04" means. 1.4 or 1.0.4? > > I am glad it was written as 1.0.4 (might have been a typo of 1.04). I > suppose we have resolved all issues in this bug. I'm not trying to difficult, but I really would like to know what this version scheme means. Could you explain it? Is 1.01 the same as 1.1, just written differently for sorting purposes? (IIUC, you added both ack and sokoban.)