On Sam, 2003-02-08 at 00:57, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 05:29:15PM +0100, Michel D?nzer scrawled: > > On Fre, 2003-02-07 at 16:53, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 06:51:52PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > > > > How is a major version number relevant for anything? For example, how > > > > > is it relevant for XFree86? > > > > > > > > It isn't, hence no other packages built from the xfree86 source package > > > > bear a version number in their name. What's your point? > > > > > > The major version number used by Mesa is not the same as the one used by > > > XFree86, except by coincidence. > > > > So the Mesa version needs to be engraved in the package name, no matter > > how irrelevant it is? Why don't you add the versions of gcc, glibc, ... > > then? ;) > > Yeah, so we'll change the package names to gcc2.72, gcc2.95, gcc3.0 and > gcc3.2! > > Hey, wait a minute ...
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. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast
