Re: Question about packaging emacs 20.5a.
Miles Bader <email@example.com> writes:
> Are you sure you understand the emacs version numbering scheme?
> Traditionally, it's been like `XX -> XXa -> XXb -> ... -> XX.1 -> XX.1a ...',
> where the letter steps are versions with changes so minor that a new
> `real' version number has been deemed unnecessary (the example usually
> used is `packaging changes', for instance, changing the permissions on a
> file in the distribution).
> In this case, emacs-20.5a would probably be a very small change to
> emacs-20.5 (no letter), and both would think they were version `20.5'
> when unpacked or compiled.
Wow. If you're right, then I definitely got sidetracked by a
non-problem. I'll go check...
Rob Browning <firstname.lastname@example.org> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930