On Don, 2003-02-06 at 06:05, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:32:55PM +0100, Michel D?nzer wrote: > > On Mit, 2003-02-05 at 21:24, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > > > Given that the soversion isn't terribly meaningful in the case of Mesa, > > > in my opinion the library package name should communicate the major > > > version number of Mesa itself. > > > > I still don't see how that is meaningful. > > It appears to be meaningful to the upstream developers of Mesa!
Sure, so isn't it funny that the current actual Mesa packages aren't called mesag5*? Anyway, we're discussing the xlibmesa packages here, and you're still dodging the question how it's meaningful for those. > > Well, I am trying to get work done, with packages that have a > > relationship to those in question, and I think it's unnecessarily > > hard, for no good reason. > > What's hard about it? It breaks every time the name changes. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
