On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 03:36:18PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > So my proposal is to restate the above policy using standard ways
> > (>=/<<), if this is okay for you I will rewrite the policy chapter.
> If you do that, how can you be sure at what version an incompatibility
> will crop in ? Maybe Jerome will lend us his cristal ball ?
Well this exactly the same problem we have while deciding when to change
the virtual package name that is Provided by a library ...
> Maybe we could solve this by saying, that if library foo is at upstream
> version 1.2.5 for example, and that there is an incompatible change,
> then we do add a little bit to the upstream version (1.2.5.1 or 1.2.5+1
> or whatever) ?
Yes, anyway I suppose (and I hope) that such cases are really few, IMO
we can safely ignore such cases in the policy and resolve them on a
case-by-case basis.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli - Undergraduate Student of CS @ Uni. Bologna, Italy
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} - http://www.bononia.it/zack/
" I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not
sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant! " -- G.Romney
Attachment:
pgp4TdV1S4MWP.pgp
Description: PGP signature