[SOLVED] Thu Feb 18 19:29:30 UTC 2021 and 20:47:35 UTC 2021: Strange ChangeLog?
SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Thu Feb 18 19:29:30 UTC 2021 and 20:47:35 UTC 2021: Strange ChangeLog?
Hi,
I'm disturbed about 2 things in the last ChangeLog in current/
1. In "Thu Feb 18 19:29:30 UTC 2021" there is: xap/mozilla-firefox-78.7.1esr-x86_64-2.txz: Rebuilt.
And in "Thu Feb 18 20:47:35 UTC 2021" there is: xap/mozilla-firefox-78.7.1esr-x86_64-1.txz: Upgraded.
The tag has been downgraded and version has not been upgraded. Can you explain that please?
Maybe Pat just restored the old firefox built and copy/paste the old ChangeLog?
2. "ap/mariadb-10.5.9-x86_64-1.txz: Upgraded.": I don't see any official tarball or git tag/release of this new version. Nothing on mariadb website. I know tarballs can be generate late, but no tag at all. Did I miss anything?
1: If you browse the changelog, you'll find that Pat always "upgrade" even if the package in question is a "downgrade", i.e. he reverts to an older version. Nothing new.
OK, I don't remember he revert using a "minus" tag. (Sorry for my english)
OK, I don't remember he revert using a "minus" tag. (Sorry for my english)
They're always "minus" tags, because it's just a dash to separate the different portions of a Slackware package PRGNAM-VERSION-ARCH-BUILD (sorry if you understood this and it was just a misunderstanding due to a language barrier).
For 3rd-party packages, there is usually a tag added to the end of the BUILD, like BUILD_TAG, but official Slackware packages don't have a tag.
In this case, Pat reverted to the previous package without rebuilding it, so the BUILD number went from 2 to 1 and he just reuploaded the old package. This does not happen often as when he reverts to older packages, he'll usually rebuild them, but since the software stack in Slackware is causing the issue, he just stuck with the old package.
Sorry bassmadrigal, my english is not very good, I didn't mean "minus" but "lower", because the package build number is lower than before.
Anyway, thanks for your clarification.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.