On Tue, 23 Jun 1998, Yann Dirson wrote:
> Dale Scheetz writes:
> > > > I like Santiago's suggestion better:
> > > >
> > > > 2.0.8pre1 => 2.0.7.99.1
> > > > 2.0.8pre2 => 2.0.7.99.2
> > > > :
> > > > 2.0.8 => 2.0.8
> > > >
> > > > Which scales properly and solves the problem.
> > >
> > > Mmm, well, this was actually suggested by Vincent Renardias, but yes, I
> > > also like this proposal :-). I used a similar approach for procmail and
> > > smartlist (only similar, because I don't have a "99"), with a
> > > clarification about the version number in the extended description.
>
> Well, it is know solution, but with a disavantage: we don't use
> upstream version number...
>
Well, only for the pre-release versions. The release version (the one we
expect to distribute) does match the upstream in the above proposal.
In the current scheme all the pre-release version numbers are correct, but
the release version must be changed, and will not match upstream.
I like the proposal much better. It also is reasonable enough that even
the glibc upstream maintainer might be encouraged to adopt our numbering
scheme.
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
