On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:55 -0500, Evan wrote:
>
> > Thank you so much for clarifying, that makes more sense.
> > Now let's throw symlinks into the mix :)
> >
> > Suppose libexample is at version 1.0 upstream.
> > The previous version w
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:55 -0500, Evan wrote:
> Thank you so much for clarifying, that makes more sense.
> Now let's throw symlinks into the mix :)
>
> Suppose libexample is at version 1.0 upstream.
> The previous version was version 0.5.
> The current package is named libexample0.5
> It has a v
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 10:36 -0500, Evan wrote:
>
> > In a normal scenario, for a library X, we would have the package libX.
> > When a new version of the lib is released upstream, the new version
> > gets packaged,
> > and the version f
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 10:36 -0500, Evan wrote:
> In a normal scenario, for a library X, we would have the package libX.
> When a new version of the lib is released upstream, the new version
> gets packaged,
> and the version field of the package gets bumped appropriately.
>
No, not true at all.
This question has been floating in the back of my mind for a while,
and a bug I ran across recently brought it forward.
What is the official policy for including version numbers in the package
name?
This is the way I understand it:
In a normal scenario, for a library X, we would have the package
