On 7/9/05, Patrys :: Patryk Zawadzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dnia 09-07-2005, sob o godzinie 14:05 +0200, Michal Moskal napisa\u0142(a): > > On 7/9/05, Fryderyk Dziarmagowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > For me this is perfectly human readable. What if I were to call my > > > > > > maybe. but not for me. > > > > > > > encryption package ZW5jcnlwdAo (for example because it is how it > > > > encrypts some word)? You would propose a different name? > > > > > > well, it doesn't matter how it sounds. we're talking about numbers (for > > > your information). > > > > So, if I ware to call a particular version this way? Who said versions > > need to be numeric... > > The point is - at one point we might decide to use another port of > makewhatis with different versioning scheme. Current approach will force > us to bump the epoch.
This is ridiculous. If some other versioning scheme was used in current makewhatis you could as well be forced to change it upon change of implementation. And beside this is not a PLD problem as there is no other version information available than the one from the upstream author, so you don't even have something to put in the Version: field. -- Michal Moskal, http://nemerle.org/~malekith/ _______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
