Re: [Cooker] Re: Re: Openldap 2.1.19
On Tue Jun 03, 2003 at 12:56:28PM -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> > This is a bad idea. If foo-1.0-1mdk is in 9.1 and there is a security
> > update, I will use foo-1.0-1.1mdk, not foo-1.0-2mdk.
>
> Indeed, you are right -- but you knew that. :-)
=)
> Perhaps I will move my decimal down a full decimal point, so to use the
> example, if foo-1.0-1mdk is in 9.1 and I want to do something locally to
> it, I will call mine foo-1.0-1.01mdk.
That would probably work better.
--
MandrakeSoft Security; http://www.mandrakesecure.net/
Online Security Resource Book; http://linsec.ca/
"lynx -source http://linsec.ca/vdanen.asc | gpg --import"
{FE6F2AFD : 88D8 0D23 8D4B 3407 5BD7 66F9 2043 D0E5 FE6F 2AFD}
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
[Cooker] Re: Re: Openldap 2.1.19
On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 19:07:36 -0600, Vincent Danen wrote: > > This is a bad idea. If foo-1.0-1mdk is in 9.1 and there is a security > update, I will use foo-1.0-1.1mdk, not foo-1.0-2mdk. Indeed, you are right -- but you knew that. :-) Perhaps I will move my decimal down a full decimal point, so to use the example, if foo-1.0-1mdk is in 9.1 and I want to do something locally to it, I will call mine foo-1.0-1.01mdk. > A full increment is > only done in cooker, not in updates. Indeed. b.
