On Mon, 22 Jun 1998, Vincent Renardias wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Jun 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> > In the mean time, unless anyone can object within the next several hours,
> > I will construct and upload a new release of glibc with the version
> > number: 2.0.7r-1
>
> IMHO, it's the best compromise...
> In the long term, instead of modifying dpkg, why not simply change the
> version number, in case this happens again. ie: if pre-2.0.8 or 2.0.8alpha
> appears, why not number the Debian package as 2.0.7.99.0?
I like this a lot better, even though it conflicts with the upstream
numbering, it is also pretty obvious what it means.
> Or in case of snapshots numbered with the release date, prepend "0.0." as
> prefix. For example, wine-980614 becomes wine-0.0.980614, so even if they
> stop the current numbering scheme and start "real release numbering",
> epochs will not be necessary...
>
In both these examples the "cludge" only hangs around for a while, while
the epoch gets stuck on the version forever.
Thanks!
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
