| 1 |
неділя, 15. січень 2006 16:03, George Shapovalov Ви написали: |
| 2 |
> > If the 2005 does turn out to be a release date rather than the |
| 3 |
> > standard name, then it makes sense as a release version; gnat-gpl-2005 |
| 4 |
> > would be enough. Later releases can add a point revision if necessary; |
| 5 |
> > if you do 2005.1 now, what happens if upstream release |
| 6 |
> > gnat-gpl-2005.1.tgz? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Good point. I kind of assumed that this just stands for the standard name, |
| 9 |
> but it indeed may be used as a version number upstream. Well, I guess the |
| 10 |
> only way to know is to pester them a bit more to see if they made up their |
| 11 |
> mind about versioning.. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Ok, I got the answer from upstream and, as I expected, 2005 refers to the |
| 14 |
language specification and is not a release version. Upstream in fact is |
| 15 |
undecided at this point on what naming/versioning scheme it is going to use, |
| 16 |
so we need to come up with something.. Then 3.4.5.1 seems as good to me as |
| 17 |
2005, probably even better (than the latter) since it is more descriptive |
| 18 |
(and is in fact easier to follow technically). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
George |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives