On 5/28/07, Scott Horowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/28/07, Jason Chu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My fear with updating a full integer is having people say, "why hasn't x86
> > updated to -5?!? arch64 has -5, why does x86 only have -4?!? are we that
> > far behind?!?" I always thought of the -1.1 notation as being a revision
> > of the revision.
>
> What makes you think people won't ask why x86 hasn't updated to -1.2?
> If version numbers don't match in _any_ way, people will undoubtedly
> be confused. And who can blame them?
Exactly my thoughts. The decimal notation is documented nowhere. If
I'm wrong on this, point me to it. Whether we are talking a .1 or 1
increase, released versions are still different. KISS points to pkgrel
being an integer, IMO.
On 5/28/07, Hussam Al-Tayeb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMO, 2.0.4-1.x releases indicate that there was no source change, only a
> build script fix that solves a problem for only some people.
> Once there is a source change, a patch, change in configure options ,
> etc.. then you release a 2.0.4-2
Um...a source change should be a bump in the package version, not the
pkgrel. However, any fix to the PKGBUILD (change in the build process)
should be a bump in the pkgrel. The only reason I stated above we may
not need to do this is if you simply change this:
arch=('i686')
to
arch=('i686' 'x86_64')
because it will not change the build itself in any way.
-Dan
_______________________________________________
arch mailing list
[email protected]
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
