Re: gcc 3.2 epoch?
Junichi Uekawa <email@example.com> writes:
> > How on earth would that change anything, given that the upstream
> > version is already trivially derivable?
> So, what is so ugly about it.
Gah, haven't you read everything else I've said?!?
The point is that the extension you've proposed above doesn't change
anything -- the `real' version used within many contexts would still be
the full-with-epoch version. The fact that there's an additional
`upstream version' field wouldn't change that anymore than the current
ability to strip off the epoch does, so there's little poitn to having
such a field.
.Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.