On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 10:15, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote: > > I didn't understand your proposal, but I hope you are not > > planning to make 2.2 < 2.3a < 2.3. That would be counter > > intuitive. IMHO any numbering scheme ought to work with `ls -v'. > > Actually, that is what I'm proposing: I've had to explain it many, many times > over the years, and people just expect to see alpha/beta releases named after > the final release they are heading towards. > > Your point about `ls -v' is a good one though. I'll put an extra `-' before > the letter: > Not sure whether it's a concern, but generally most packaging systems (RPM springs to mind) do not allow a '-' in the package's upstream version.
Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
