Thava Alagu wrote: > > > Currently I see many other packages including the version number as > part of > description. I understand the deficiency in the patch system not > updating > the version but I am not sure not including the basic version number > in pkginfo > is the right/official way to address this ? Because if you get hold > of a package > bits, it will be very hard to identify what version the package > contains.
If the unfortunate choice is between no info and misleading+incorrect info, no info is always the lesser evil. Including the "basic version number" is good, as you say. But what does "basic version number" mean? In this context it means the part of the version that cannot change for the lifetime of that package. For example, SUNWapch22r package will always be related to an Apache 2.2 release. It might be 2.2.6 or 2.2.8 or 2.2.20 but no matter, it is a 2.2 series release. So the SUNWapch22r pkginfo describes itself as version "2.2". -- Jyri J. Virkki - jyri.virkki at sun.com - Sun Microsystems
