On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 09:27:28AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: > While you may be right, we're talking about different things. :) > > Marcelo was wondering why I bumped the name to xlibmesa4-* for my > packages, and I pointed out that having xlibmesa3-*, for Mesa 4, would > be horrifically stupid and misleading. > > So, while I can't fault your logic of Mesa 3 being in 4.2.1 ... ;) Okay. I agree. Given that the soversion isn't terribly meaningful in the case of Mesa, in my opinion the library package name should communicate the major version number of Mesa itself. However, Policy doesn't mandate that sort of thing, and if Marcelo wants to do things differently than I do, there's no harm in that. All the important issues, like what the virtual package names mean, we already agreed upon, and that's what counts to people trying to get work done. -- G. Branden Robinson | Somebody once asked me if I thought Debian GNU/Linux | sex was dirty. I said, "It is if branden@debian.org | you're doing it right." http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Woody Allen
Attachment:
pgpBfF2FMuGbV.pgp
Description: PGP signature