Mark Rosenstand wrote:
On Sun, 2006-10-22 at 21:33 -0500, Randy McMurchy wrote:
I'm leaning to 6.2.0. Here's why:
I don't know how to increment from 6.2 and still be within the LFS-6.2
structure. BLFS-6.2.1 makes no sense if there wasn't a 6.2.0 version.
This is how most other projects do versioning though. If the
microversion is undefined, 0 is implicit. Take a look of the file
listings on your local GNU mirror.
I think "most" is a stretch. I looked, and for every one that
uses 5.2 to 5.2.1 versioning, there seems to be 3 that do
5.2.0 to 5.2.1 versioning.
Could you provide some specific examples that show otherwise?
--
Randy
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
