-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 23 Jun 1998, James Troup wrote:
> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The current problem can be solved by a version suffix and therefore > > does not require an epoch. > > Eh? Almost any version-number problem can be solved by a version > suffix[1]. What's your point? Are you saying we don't need epochs? > Or anyone using epochs is opting for the ``poor'' solution? > > [1] 2.9.1-0.1.this.is.really.2.8.1 anyone? The point, I think, is that 2.0.7r is exactly the upstream version number (2.0.7) plus a suffix (r). However, 2.9.1-0.1.this.is.really.2.8.1 is not that way, because the non-suffix part (2.9.1) is not the upstream version number (2.8.1, really). Using epochs is adding things "to the left", while using prefixes is adding things "to the right". If we can add things "to the right" to solve a version-number problem at the same time we keep the main version number intact, then we don't need an epoch. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAgUBNY/5LyqK7IlOjMLFAQGLZwP8DkTvhz2QcNf8N/PMl8A0TkZ9fVkB7TuV eSb81gh1+8e4bJ5qNsLgVUtq5DZcCazXY/aLi0KTeYXyGj9zcqCBjPKedDAwZSFY mlzEvCWGkxNDdVQaW7StptGSeSSQ419bNR3Qdi2rsmNUXtPDXQ4Y2iy+Z96r+o7K l+vaDSf97y0= =7mLw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]