On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:43 PM, David DEMELIER
wrote:
>
> Not a bad idea, the problem is that the file UPDATING does not speak
> always for a package, sometime it's just some information that are not
> specific to a package.
>
Well, that could be addressed by having a stricter way of populating
2010/8/19 Andres Perera :
> The idea is to add a VERSION field so that automated tools can display
> the entries prior performing the actual upgrade.
>
> Filtering by date isn't exact enough, so the new field will correspond
> with the first version of the port were the "problem" occurs.
>
> Withou
The idea is to add a VERSION field so that automated tools can display
the entries prior performing the actual upgrade.
Filtering by date isn't exact enough, so the new field will correspond
with the first version of the port were the "problem" occurs.
Without getting into implementation details,
