On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 04:15:23AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 11:47:58PM -0500, Mark L. Kahnt wrote: > > Just a quick interjection - the situation would appear comparable to > > that of Bind (version 8) and Bind9 (not version 8) - a relatively clear > > and apparently broadly accepted solution to packaging a noticeably > > different successor system. > > So does that mean bind9 will become bind10? Hell, I don't want to > have to remember the version numbers of every package on my system. > Version numbers in the package names considered harmful.
That's a naive view. It would be nice if packages were always indefinitely forward- and backward-compatible, but that doesn't happen in the real world. I'd very much *like* to see the exim 4 package being a smooth upgrade from exim 3, so that it could just be called exim. However, the exim4 people appear to think that's not possible safely enough for a base package. Before taking the simplistic "considered harmful" view please consider *why* version numbers sometimes find their way into package names. http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/comment/chech.html Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
