On Sat, 2003-03-22 at 21:49, Jamin W. Collins wrote: > On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 03:16:14PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote: > > On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 00:11:18 -0600 "Jamin W. Collins" > > <jcollins@asgardsrealm.net> wrote: > > > > Not so. "exim" is a base package. That doesn't mean that "exim4" > > > would have to be a base package. It would just be another > > > _optional_ package. > > > > Which I addressed by asking "Do we really need to start putting the > > version number in the package name now, IE exim4?" which you deleted. > > Because my response was not related to it. But since you seem to really > want me to address it, I see no problem with major changes like this > taking this route. It allows the end user to choose what /they/ want. Just a quick interjection - the situation would appear comparable to that of Bind (version 8) and Bind9 (not version 8) - a relatively clear and apparently broadly accepted solution to packaging a noticeably different successor system. -- Mark L. Kahnt, FLMI/M, ALHC, HIA, AIAA, ACS, MHP ML Kahnt New Markets Consulting Tel: (613) 531-8684 / (613) 539-0935 Email: kahnt@hosehead.dyndns.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part