"Brian J. Murrell" wrote:
>
> from the quill of geoffrey lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on scroll
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
> >
> > yes, ...but i think that it's one of the more often chnaged stuff
> > (coz
> > it's used often i guess..),
>
> So?
>
> > wouldn't it look better if it's 0.1mdk and
> > for the next release of mandrake we change this back to 1mdk?
>
> That, IMHO is horse-pucky. IIRC, when it was introduced, it was
> explained that decimal packages were for packages that did not have an
> official release number. Decimal releases were for snapshots and cvs
> downloads,
>
> The whole "1mdk looks better in a release" is a big fat red herring
> IMHO. The number of releases a package has had does not matter.
>
> > (a bit
> > like the rpm package now.)
>
> It is my understanding that 3.0.4 "proper" of RPM has not been released
> which is why we are using decimal releases. Is that not the case?
no, 3.0.4 is all well and final. :) i'm not sure, either i'm wrong or
rpm.org html is out of date ...but you know you can find rpm 3.0.4 in
the distrib (forgot the absolute name) ftp directory. alpha software
wouldn't go there ...
>
> b.
>
> --
> Brian J. Murrell InterLinx Support Services, Inc.
> North Vancouver, B.C. 604 983 UNIX
> Platform and Brand Independent UNIX Support - R3.2 - R4 - BSD
--
#!/bin/sh
cat <
