Bill Mitchell writes: Bill> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Ian> * dpkg and other packages written especially for Debian don't have a Ian> revision number because a revision number would be meaningless and Ian> confusing. [...] Bill> I'm not religious on this issue, but I'd prefer it if a revision Bill> (or, equivalently, a hyphen-delimited revision suffix of the version Bill> number) were a required part of the package name. Authors of Bill> packages which originate under debian could arbitrarily choose 0 or 1 Bill> for the revision for debian packaging purposes. I don't see any Bill> advantage in introducing an unnecessary irregularity into the package Bill> naming and versioning scheme over this.
We should require a revision number for Debian packages. Imagine someone forgets to remove -g in the Makefile and doesn't strip the executable, or some other oversight happens. You need a revision number to distinguish an oversight-fix release. To err is human, so let's thrive for fault tolerance. -- Dirk Eddelb"uttel http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/~edd
