Dnia 09-07-2005, sob o godzinie 14:32 +0200, Michal Moskal napisał(a): > On 7/9/05, Patrys :: Patryk Zawadzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
Does this mean we need to have another versioning system for packages that are really code snapshots from a constantly changing code? I can see no difference between current makewhatis and fortunes. > 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. There is no version? Fine. Then let's keep it consistent and use YYYYMMDD without any extra characters - that's how fortunes and wine modules are versioned. Why invent another scheme? -- Patrys :: Patryk Zawadzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
