Randy McMurchy wrote: > Justin R. Knierim wrote these words on 04/26/06 18:58 CST: > >> Not to be a pain, but couldn't we keep the 3.0.3 version or >> &dhcp-version;, change it to -1 and in patches repo create a symlink? >> Not a big deal, just very rarely have I seen patches keep the old >> version number like this. > > Yes, it is part of the Patches Project Guidelines. This was probably > oversight that it was missed. Policy is that during a package > version update, the patches are renamed to the new version number > and a -1 as the patch revision.
I did it on purpose because I saw that the only file the patch modifies had, and still has, a year 2000 timestamp. Since the file didn't change, the patch didn't need to change. I purposely removed the &dhcp-version; from the patch name. I don't think I see the need to update patches in these types of cases, but if you guys think it needs to be done, go ahead. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-book FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
