>>>>> "JP" == Jens Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>> "Jens" == Jens Petersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 5th Jan:
Jens> I would like to make the suggestion that future
Jens> releases of Hugs are made with a version naming
Jens> convention that is more sort friendly. The
Jens> current "MonYear" versioning scheme is problematic
Jens> for packagers.
Jens> ie the current release would be better called say
Jens> "200311" (using Debian's hugs98 package versioning
Jens> scheme) than "Nov2003", since this sorts much more
Jens> easily.
JP> Does this sound reasonable? Any comments from the
JP> maintainers?
Errm, still no response. :-\
Sorry, I should probably have explained that the reason for
asking is to resolve the following Fedora Extras packaging
issue:
https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=840
and
https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=842
To summarize, basically the problem is that the package
version may end up being versioned at 0.0 unless upstream
(ie the Hugs maintainers here) agree to some improved
(machine friendly) version numbering scheme like YYYYMM
instead. So some kind of response would be greatly
appreciated to speed up inclusion of hugs98 at the fedora.us
repository. :-)
Also any help with QA'ing the hugs98 package for Fedora would
be great. :-)
Jens
_______________________________________________
Hugs-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/hugs-users
