[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: xlibmesa naming and relationships



On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 05:29:15PM +0100, Michel D?nzer scrawled:
> On Fre, 2003-02-07 at 16:53, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 06:51:52PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote:
> > > > How is a major version number relevant for anything?  For example, how
> > > > is it relevant for XFree86?
> > > 
> > > It isn't, hence no other packages built from the xfree86 source package
> > > bear a version number in their name. What's your point?
> > 
> > The major version number used by Mesa is not the same as the one used by
> > XFree86, except by coincidence.
> 
> So the Mesa version needs to be engraved in the package name, no matter
> how irrelevant it is? Why don't you add the versions of gcc, glibc, ...
> then? ;)

Yeah, so we'll change the package names to gcc2.72, gcc2.95, gcc3.0 and
gcc3.2!

Hey, wait a minute ...

-- 
Daniel Stone                                     <dstone@trinity.unimelb.edu.au>
Developer, Trinity College, University of Melbourne

Attachment: pgpHw3gcUqfet.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: