On 28/07/07, Scott Horowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm sorry, but that's just untrue. Looking at the two version numbers, > I have no idea which is supposed to be newer without reading the > original poster's comments; certainly pacman would have no idea > either. What the heck does "P1" stand for?
It stands for 'patch 1'. > Pacman shouldn't get bandaid on top of hack on top of kludge in order > to make up for developers that come up with their own number > versioning system. If it's a newer version, give it a higher version > number. Anything with letters or other characters is not at all > obvious. Well, we could argue for a whole year and come up with a completly different conclusion but I hope we won't. In a normal view of things, package numbers are incremented when you change the package itself, when you improve it. But in this case, this is the software which is different, not the package. That said, the version number of the software itself is still the same, it just has been patched. And this is the first version of the package for the first patched version of bind 9.4.1. Gentoo tools don't have such a rude behavior in similar cases and I can't see it at a hack or a cludge. -- Benoit Myard _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
