Re: Official Exim 4 package
On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 04:15:23AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 11:47:58PM -0500, Mark L. Kahnt wrote:
> > 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.
>
> So does that mean bind9 will become bind10? Hell, I don't want to
> have to remember the version numbers of every package on my system.
> Version numbers in the package names considered harmful.
That's a naive view. It would be nice if packages were always
indefinitely forward- and backward-compatible, but that doesn't happen
in the real world.
I'd very much *like* to see the exim 4 package being a smooth upgrade
from exim 3, so that it could just be called exim. However, the exim4
people appear to think that's not possible safely enough for a base
package. Before taking the simplistic "considered harmful" view please
consider *why* version numbers sometimes find their way into package
names.
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/comment/chech.html
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: