On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 01:59:11PM -0600, Scott Horowitz 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? > > I find decimals in the pkgrel to be overly confusing myself. Frankly, > I would just bump the pkgrel and release a new package for x86 as > well, even if it's an identical package. Arch already requires lots of > bandwidth (come on xdelta! :D) and I doubt these situations arise > frequently.
I'm pretty sure you'd hear just as many people complaining about having to download packages that are no different than the ones they already have. Also developers grumbling and arch64 forcing them to rebuild and upload packages that didn't change. Jason
pgp7pa6EwbAAW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
