I wrote: > I'm not the maintainer for the Debian package, but 1.2 would be better > for Debian as well.
Nick Rusnov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I guess I should pipe up with why debian has a 1.1-release nmh package. > [...] > Even though the the package is version 1.1-release it wouldn't be much > of an imposition to have another 1.1 "real" release, as I could version > it a variety of ways (1.1-release-official and 1.1-release2 evaluate as > 'greater' versions than 1.1-release, and of course 1.2 is greater than > 1.1-release also). Maybe to reduce users' confusion 1.2 would be better, > but it can't be claimed that its needed for package management version > control. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that packaging was an issue (using an epoch is ugly but is also a solution). I also meant that it's easier for _interested_ users to see an increase in version number rather than complicated annotations to version number (such as 1.1-release-official). But most users will simply upgrade the package along with others in the distribution without even knowing anyway (using aptitude or apt-get). Peter MH-E developer and its Debian maintainer with no nmh skills to speak of ;-) _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
