On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:17:12PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote: > > > I want a consistent versioning scheme, thus +nmuX for both native and > > > non-natives packages. > > > > I'd be very unhappy about that. For one, I think using such suffix in a > > field that forms part of users' everyday's life is, uhm, inappropriate > > or disruptive. What do they care if the version is a NMU or not? > > Hu? And +dfsg is and +b1 is also inappropriate and disruptive? > > I simply don't follow your reasoning here. While most users do not care > about NMU vs non-NMU, I don't think they would be troubled with > the extension... at least not any more than any other extension that > we already use for various purposes. >
As a user of Debian, it is informative to some users to know something about the package by reading this information 'encoded' in the filename. just my 2 yen. -- | .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: | | : :' : The Universal |mysite.verizon.net/kevin.mark/| | `. `' Operating System | go to counter.li.org and | | `- http://www.debian.org/ | be counted! #238656 | | my keyserver: subkeys.pgp.net | my NPO: cfsg.org | |join the new debian-community.org to help Debian! | |_______ Unless I ask to be CCd, assume I am subscribed _______| -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
