Re: Question about packaging emacs 20.5a.
Hamish Moffatt <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 11:31:50AM -0800, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> > Ick. You'll be stuck with epochs forever. Gross. I'd rather only use
> > epochs to fix a mistake in packaging *or* a radical versioning change
> > from upstream. This isn't either of those cases.
> Why are epochs gross?
Well, dodging that question for a moment, I'm going with the ugly, but
non-epoch version for now. I can always switch to epochs later if
there's some consensus.
I don't really care too much either way, though I do recall something
in the packaging manual about trying to avoid using epochs to handle
"broken upstream version numbers". It goes on to suggest that you
should instead just mangle the version to something "reasonable".
However, I could easily be convinced that "XXa -> XXb -> XX" is not a
totally unreasonable upstream versioning order...
Oh well. I'll worry about that later.
New emacs coming up.
Rob Browning <email@example.com> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930