Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> There's no reason in there that the older package must have the versioning
> and the newer package is bare.
No, but the version almost everyone is going to use should be the default,
not the suffixed version. Usually, that's the newer version.
Kevin Kofler
--
f
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 05:34:40PM +0100, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Alexander pointed out that I was suggesting a wrong name for Saxon 9
> package [1]. In fact there's a couple of packages in repositories now
> that violate the naming policy [2] in the very same way. Apart from
> wondering w
Hi Lubomir,
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 17:20 +0100, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Alexander pointed out that I was suggesting a wrong name for Saxon 9
> package [1]. In fact there's a couple of packages in repositories now
> that violate the naming policy [2] in the very same way. Apart from
> wonde
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Given the history of these, this sounds like way more work to change
> than it's worth. (They'd certainly have to still provide 'glib2'
> and 'gtk2' for many years in the future.)
Well, given how few things still use gtk+ 1, it shouldn't be that hard to do
now, as only th
Am 20.11.2009 17:34, schrieb Lubomir Rintel:
Hi,
automake1.11-2.fc11
automake17 1.7.9-12
What's wrong with this ? automake-1.11 is the new, current version,
automake1{4,5,6,7} are the older ones.
Karsten
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https:/
Lubomir Rintel (lkund...@v3.sk) said:
> glib1:1.2.10-32.fc11
> glib2 2.20.5-1.fc11
>
> gtk+1:1.2.10-68.fc11
> gtk22.16.6-2.fc11
Given the history of these, this sounds like way more work to change
than it's worth. (They'd certainly ha
Hi,
Alexander pointed out that I was suggesting a wrong name for Saxon 9
package [1]. In fact there's a couple of packages in repositories now
that violate the naming policy [2] in the very same way. Apart from
wondering what does Devrim think about renaming the existing saxon
package, I'm wonderi
