Please review the changes again at http://cr.opensolaris.org/~sunandam/6671294
Thanks Sunanda Jyri Virkki wrote: > 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". > > >
