I guess I really can't think of a good reason to choose one over the other, both seem reasonable. I would have to say 'b', just seems clearer to me than adding it to the perl version number.
~Mike Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote: > I set the version of all SFEperl-* packages to 5.8.4, because the > extend perl 5.8.4. If you install a newer version of perl, they > won't work because the perl version number is in the path names. > You could potentially have another instance of these packages > installed, with a different version number, that extend perl 5.6.1. > > We could > a) append the component version number to the perl version number, > e.g. SFEperl-cairo 5.8.4.1.022 > or > > b) include the component version number in the package summary, > e.g Cairo perl bindings 1.022 > > What do you guys think? > > Laca > > On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 11:25 -0600, Mike Kiedrowski wrote: > >> *drat* hit relpy instead of reply all..... >> >> >> Hi Damien, >> >> The perl module spec file I used as an example from the repository >> (SFEperl-io-dynamic to be exact) was done that way. That's the only >> reason. I actually agree that using the module version makes more sense. >> Maybe it should be changed? >> >> ~Mike >> >> Damien Carbery wrote: >> >>> They build grand on my system. >>> >>> Why did you give them 5.8.4 as the version (I know it is the version of >>> perl on the system). I would have expected you to use the module version >>> number. >>> > > > > >
