On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 10:26:05AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: > I'm not having packages with a misleading name. I'm keeping up status > quo until I see a good reason to change current (and expected) > behaviour. So far you haven't provided one.
Neither have you. As per policy, that number should reflect the interface the package implements. The fact that "3" was picked up by Branden is just an historical accident. My guess is Branden just followed what was back then current practice, i.e., the Mesa packges (which I now maintain). Why the Mesa packages carry a 3 is also historical baggage and most people seem to be unaware why that 3 is there in the first place. Hint, James *did* follow the policy when he first created the Mesa packages. -- M. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
