April 21, 2015
1:13 p.m.
2015-04-21 14:53 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com>:
On 21 Apr 2015, at 14:37, Stephan Eggermont <stephan@stack.nl> wrote:
On 21/04/15 13:14, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
nope, solution is to explicit version to load :)
Explicit symbolic version, that is. Never a fixed number, as that can't be patched. That breaks the update process just as well.
no... explicit fixed number. I need version 1.0.42, not #stable or #myCoolFantasyNumberWichAfterAllIsEqualButWorstTo-1-0-42 And of course can be patched.... with version 1.0.43.
Where are those version numbers stored? Is it possible to modify a configuration outside and break that process? That's the only way to be able to make the update process work.
No. Thierry
Esteban
Stephan