On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:32:55PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote: > On Mit, 2003-02-05 at 21:24, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > Given that the soversion isn't terribly meaningful in the case of Mesa, > > in my opinion the library package name should communicate the major > > version number of Mesa itself. > > I still don't see how that is meaningful.
It appears to be meaningful to the upstream developers of Mesa! > > However, Policy doesn't mandate that sort of thing, and if Marcelo wants > > to do things differently than I do, there's no harm in that. All the > > important issues, like what the virtual package names mean, we already > > agreed upon, and that's what counts to people trying to get work done. > > You seem to be implying I'm not one of those. No, not at all. > Well, I am trying to get work done, with packages that have a > relationship to those in question, and I think it's unnecessarily > hard, for no good reason. What's hard about it? > The best one so far seems to be 'we've made the mistake of picking the > Mesa version once, let's keep doing it indefinitely'. It is true that I am unwilling to break with this tradition without seeing a good case for the affirmative. -- G. Branden Robinson | I must despise the world which does Debian GNU/Linux | not know that music is a higher [EMAIL PROTECTED] | revelation than all wisdom and http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | philosophy. -- Ludwig van Beethoven
msg05677/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
