Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: > David Walser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> No need for the "hack," if the package name is versioned as it >> should be, kernel2.5 suffices. > > hack is sometimes needed to explicitely show to users that it's > unstable.
It shouldn't be. The only use of "hack" I can remember that was really appropriate was hackaudacity. We had to hack the code to make it work with a newer library or something like that. Other things were just newer versions and should have just had version names, and were fixed eventually (like abiword2 and gaim0.6x). Unless we fork the kernel, it shouldn't be a hack.
