Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Lamar Owen writes:
> > Yes, I am, actually. But it seems a broken way of dealing with it.
> > Although I do have another idea, thanks to Trond. Rather than package
> > '7.1RC4-1' I could package '7.1-0.1RC4' -- giving a straight
> > versioning. I could progress from '7.1-0.1beta1.1' through
> > '7.1-0.1beta6.2' through '7.1-0.2RC1.1' to '7.1-1'.
> Just name them
> 7.1betax
> 7.1rcx
> 7.1.0
> 7.1.1
And I like that -- but that would be Marc's (and the core group)
decision to make not mine. If the current schema is continued, I can
work around it --but it would be nice if the version numbering could be
more packager-friendly. I have a real aversion to naming the RPM
version number differently from the main package version.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
