On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 11:17:06AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 01:04:18AM +0100, Michel D?nzer scrawled: > > Duh, gcc obviously needs _its own_ version in the package name. I was > > talking about xserver3.2-xfree86 (built with gcc 3.2), xlibs2.3.1 (built > > against glibc 2.3.1), ... because those version numbers are about as > > relevant to those packages as the Mesa version number is to xlibmesa. > > I agree entirely with Branden: if the changes are irrelevant, why does > upstream keep bumping the *major* revision number? Er, I did not assert that Mesa had no business bumping their major version number. -- G. Branden Robinson | If you make people think they're Debian GNU/Linux | thinking, they'll love you; but if branden@debian.org | you really make them think, they'll http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | hate you.
Attachment:
pgpalvJEzC0aF.pgp
Description: PGP signature