On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 11:37:04PM -0500, Branden Robinson scrawled: > On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 11:17:06AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 01:04:18AM +0100, Michel D?nzer scrawled: > > > Duh, gcc obviously needs _its own_ version in the package name. I was > > > talking about xserver3.2-xfree86 (built with gcc 3.2), xlibs2.3.1 (built > > > against glibc 2.3.1), ... because those version numbers are about as > > > relevant to those packages as the Mesa version number is to xlibmesa. > > > > I agree entirely with Branden: if the changes are irrelevant, why does > > upstream keep bumping the *major* revision number? > > Er, I did not assert that Mesa had no business bumping their major > version number.
Man, you missed a rhetorical question. You must be really tired. I wasn't inferring that you thought that Mesa had no business bumping their major version number. Also, that colon should've been a semi-colon, inferring that I was agreeing with you, and suggesting that Mesa probably bumped their major revision number for a reason. Have another drink. :) d -- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Developer, Trinity College, University of Melbourne
msg05748/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
