Gan Lu wrote: > On Mon, 28 May 2007 11:39:34 -0400 > "Dan McGee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 5/28/07, Roman Kyrylych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> 2007/5/28, Michael Towers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>> Is it now allowed to have a '.' in the 'pkgrel'? Was it always allowed? >>>> If so, is it necessary? If not, why does pacman accept it? >>> It is allowed to state that this is a change for one arch only (i.e. >>> x86-64-specific). >> I've brought this up elsewhere, but I will state an opinion on this >> thread- I think keeping pkgrel to an integer is a much smarter idea. >> First off, that version number is hard to parse by a human- far too >> many dashes and dots to know which is what. Second, the only change >> I've ever seen that uses a .1 increment is adding an architecture to >> the arch array. This is completely unnecessary- there is no need to >> bump the pkgrel at all, and if you do want to bump it, then just bump >> it a full integer. >> >> Thoughts? > Agreed. > >> -Dan >>
/me agrees too. Having a pkgrel for issues like this, and then having a "sub-pkgrel notation" is just plain ridiculous. The pkgrel is there in the first place for such things. _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
