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:
pgpxKmpJtr1mA.pgp
Description: PGP signature