Re: gcc 3.2 epoch?
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 02:21:32PM +0100, Arthur de Jong wrote:
> That would also increase the number of security related questions like:
> release 1.2.3 is reported to be vulnerable, why is Debian still shipping
> 1.2.3 and not 1.2.4?
> The debian sub-version should not be hidden, the epoch is already almost
> always hidden.
> Also I don't think it's a terribly good idea to have two completely
> separated versioning schemes side by side in two different files (control
> and changelog).
As said in my proposal is that you would need to go to greater lengths
to expose both versions, the upstream version number would not be
You could even combine the two together for displaying it to the user.
However, I doubt this would happen, people seem happy with the current
Brian May <email@example.com>