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: Sat, 04 May 2013 14:34:50 -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 1367692522 21020 80.91.229.3 (4 May 2013 18:35:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 18:35:22 +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 Sat May 04 20:35:20 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 1UYhIm-0001I8-48 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 04 May 2013 20:35:20 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57008 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UYhIl-0002UA-PJ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 04 May 2013 14:35:19 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36603) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UYhIi-0002Tn-Q5 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 04 May 2013 14:35:17 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UYhIh-0008Se-Q1 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 04 May 2013 14:35:16 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:54055) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UYhIh-0008SU-NG for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 04 May 2013 14:35:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UYhJS-0006Bb-3E for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 04 May 2013 14:36:02 -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: Sat, 04 May 2013 18:36:02 +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=B14338.136769254123727 (code B ref 14338); Sat, 04 May 2013 18:36:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 14338) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 May 2013 18:35:41 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58164 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UYhJ7-0006Ae-C5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 04 May 2013 14:35:41 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:34720) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UYhJ4-0006AQ-AT for 14338@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 04 May 2013 14:35:39 -0400 Original-Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UYhII-0001Dt-9g; Sat, 04 May 2013 14:34:50 -0400 X-Spook: defense information warfare MILSATCOM BCCI War on X-Ran: fD**"p?^[yy^"^~x$^/H4@X2'd)>.['RpH:2 X-Hue: yellow X-Attribution: GM In-Reply-To: (Leo Liu's message of "Sat, 04 May 2013 04:54:35 +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:73955 Archived-At: Leo Liu wrote: > I wonder if the archiver can be more flexible. The versioning scheme > isn't peculiar. If you want 1.01 (or 1.001 etc) to be different to 1.1 (do you? I don't know), then I don't think that can be done without an incompatible change to archive-contents. But if 1.01 is the same as 1.1, that can probably be made to work. But then why not just write 1.1.