On Mon, 22 Jun 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote: > There has got to be a better way to deal with this problem (which is > fundamentally a sorting problem). > > Santiago's suggestion of 2.0.7r-1 is more satisfying but, if you > consider the situation, doesn't really resolve the long term problem > any better. > > What we need here is a better way of dealing with this problem. My > mind has no solution at the moment, but my gut says that there is one, > so I will keep looking. > > The reason I think this is a continuing problem is that the next round > of glibc development is just a likely to run through several "preX" > versions before a release is made.
IMO, the problem is caused by the fact that the packages are given the new version number before that version is actually released. how about using "2.07pre8-1", "2.07pre8-2", and so on for the next set of glibc pre-releases? maybe this should be policy for all pre-release packages? > In the mean time, unless anyone can object within the next several > hours, I will construct and upload a new release of glibc with the > version number: 2.0.7r-1 cool, that'll solve the immediate problem. craig -- craig sanders -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]