-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Max Horn wrote:
The other "solution" which nobody mentioned yet (or maybe I missed it), is rather trivial: we go back to the old scheme of renaming the .info/.patch file for each version/revision. Personally I like that solution much better than any ".info/.patch" combination technique. So far I have yet to personally experience actual advantages of the new "%n.info" scheme (I am curious, folks: tell me your success stories, things you were able to do with the new system which you couldn't do in the past. I am talking about real experience, no theoretical scenarios, please :-)
I don't see how there will be any success stories until enough time passes that packages that are currently unnumbered undergo revision. The advantage in the new naming scheme is being able to see the history, and until you start updating packages, there will be no history. :)
- -- Benjamin Reed a.k.a. Ranger Rick -- http://ranger.befunk.com/
Standards are the industry's way of codifying obsolescence.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQE/DxypUu+jZtP2Zf4RAjnrAJ0Qqed6H7wYk+dDPfbp+ZM8x4HoqQCgi+oU wZhIvvxclr+ACFTMheufCus= =malj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
