On Sat, 2001-11-03 at 05:48, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Fri, Nov 02, 2001 at 01:20:03PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: > >Robert Collins wrote: > > > > > >In the "Package file naming" section: > >"In the event that a package doesn't sort correctly (for example, from > >...-9-... to ...-10-..., use the setup.hint current, prev and exp labels to > >override the inbuilt sort during the transition period." > > > >I think setup.hint's are more-or-less required, now. Otherwise, there's no > >way to set the sdesc, ldesc, dependencies, etc. So, the "auto-sort" is a > >soon-to-be-vestigial feature; emphasis should be on setup.hint. > > I don't think there is any reason to force the versioning in setup.hint. > That's sort of error-prone, actually. Experience has shown that.
OTOH it's the only way we can have "really stable" "should be stable" and "use at own risk" all available via setup.exe and clearly identified. Without setup.hint, a single file is *assumed* to be current. IMO, that's dangerous as we get more packages. Rob
